Daisy Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. State, 405 S.W.3d 936

Gutierrez-Rodriguez was convicted of theft, a Class B misdemeanor, in two cases after a consolidated jury trial and received 180 days confinement and a $200 fine in each case, suspended and placed on 1 year of community supervision.
She challenges: (a) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to prove theft, and (b) the restitution requirement for items not charged or convicted.
Cause No. 11-00232-CRM-CCL2 alleged theft of a GPS device from Blair, with testimony tying the device to Blair via home address and other items missing from Blair’s pickup.
Cause No. 11-00234-CRM-CCL2 alleged theft of an iPod from McCoy, with a pawned iPod recovered and identified as McCoy’s, plus corroborating pawnshop and police testimony.
The jury found guilt as charged in both informations; trial court initially sentenced, then added restitution totaling $1,215 as a condition of community supervision.
The appellate court sustained the insufficiency challenges but reversed the restitution portion, modifying judgments to delete restitution obligations and affirming as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove theft	Gutierrez-Rodriguez contends the State failed to prove the specific items were hers beyond a reasonable doubt.	Guzman argues the State supported the iPod linkage to McCoy and value of Blair’s GPS; credibility issues go to the jury.	Evidence legally sufficient; jury could reasonably find theft.
Restitution for uncharged/undetermined losses	Gutierrez-Rodriguez argues restitution for items not charged or proven is improper.	Guzman asserts restitution is permissible as part of community supervision for the offense.	Trial court abused discretion by ordering restitution for uncharged losses; judgments modified to delete restitution.

Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (defer to fact-finder on conflicts; standard reviewing sufficiency)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard for evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (standard for reviewing weight and credibility of evidence)
Cabla v. State, 6 S.W.3d 543 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (due process and restitution boundaries)
Martin v. State, 874 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) (punishment tied to charged offenses; fairness)
Campbell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 693 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (due process limits on restitution amounts)
Gordan v. State, 707 S.W.2d 626 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (restitution must reflect actual losses for which defendant legally responsible)
Garcia v. State, 773 S.W.2d 694 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989) (trial court lacked authority to order restitution for third-party offenses)
Ex parte Pena, 739 S.W.2d 50 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) (reformation of judgment to delete invalid conditions)
Reasor v. State, 281 S.W.3d 129 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2008) (modify community supervision to delete inappropriate restitution)