Charles Francis Williams v. State, 06-15-00031-CR

Appellant Charles Francis Williams was convicted in Hunt County of theft of copper (under $20,000) and unauthorized use of a vehicle and sentenced to 10 years, concurrent, on January 28, 2015; this brief argues for reversal.
Incident: August 19, 2014—two men appear on Sharyland Utilities surveillance video removing copper wire and driving away in a utility truck; video shows one man with copper and another driving.
Witness evidence: Utility employee Ervin viewed the video but did not recognize the suspects and did not see Williams with copper in real time; he identified the man holding copper on the tape.
Investigators: Deputy Kelly Phillips testified he believed the lighter‑shirted man in the video was Williams; no usable fingerprints were recovered.
Appellant’s central factual contention: the video and testimony do not reliably identify Williams as the actor who stole the copper or who operated the truck; presence in the area after the theft is insufficient to prove guilt as a party.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for theft of copper (< $20,000)	State relied on video and witness IDs to prove Williams appropriated copper without consent	Williams argues identification is uncertain, no direct possession shown, and evidence fails to connect him to the theft beyond speculation	Trial court convicted; appellant asks appellate court to reverse for legally insufficient evidence
Sufficiency of evidence for unauthorized use of a vehicle	State asserts video shows Williams at scene and the stolen vehicle being used	Williams contends the driver on video is the darker‑shirted man, not him; mere presence is insufficient to prove operation or party liability	Trial court convicted; appellant seeks reversal for legally insufficient evidence

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (evidence must permit any rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (use of a hypothetically correct jury charge in sufficiency analysis)
United States v. Murray, 527 F.2d 401 (5th Cir. 1976) (uncertain in‑court identification alone is insufficient to support conviction)
Anderson v. State, 813 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (uncertain in‑court identification cannot by itself sustain a conviction)
Swartz v. State, 61 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001) (discussing identification and sufficiency)
Thompson v. State, 697 S.W.2d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (mere presence at scene or flight, without more, is insufficient to establish party liability)