Garza v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 915
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Garza convicted in a single trial of first-degree-felony aggregated theft and second-degree-felony aggregated theft; offenses arose from a single scheme to appropriate HP funds; total value alleged over $200,000; conviction and sentences: 7 years and $5,000 fine for 1st-degree aggregated theft, 6 years and $10,000 fine for 2nd-degree aggregated theft; Court of Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court granted only the first-degree-felony review and affirmed the Court of Appeals.
- Indictment alleged money owned by Dennis Leahy was unlawfully appropriated from June 2, 2003 through August 30, 2005 under one scheme, with total value over $200,000.
- Appellant argued Leahy was not owner with possessory rights for most of the period, and thus ownership element was not proven; also argued insufficiency to prove amount stolen.
- Court of Appeals held ownership could be established even if Leahy was not HP employee for entire period, and that aggregated theft does not require proving ownership for each sub-theft.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that ownership need not be named as a substantive element, but the State must prove that the owner alleged in the indictment is the owner proven by the evidence; Leahy, as HP employee, was properly alleged as the special owner and testified to value as HP’s agent; aggregated-theft framework permits treating the scheme as a single offense completed on the last incident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must prove the special owner’s employee status for each theft | Garza says owner must be employee in each theft | State argues aggregated theft totality suffices; owner need not be employee at every theft | Affirmed: not required for each theft; ownership may be shown across the scheme as a whole. |
| Whether ownership proof is required at the time of the last theft | Garza claims insufficiency due to timing of ownership. | State argues owner status is proven by overall scheme; no per-theft ownership proof needed | Affirmed: aggregated theft supports ownership proof over the entire scheme. |
| Whether Leahy could be a valid special owner and admissible to prove value | Owners must have possessory rights; Leahy not owner at all times | Leahy testified as hp employee; as HP employee he had greater right to possession; acts as HP’s agent | Affirmed: Leahy could be special owner; HP was owner; Leahy testified to value as agent. |
| Whether the indictment properly alleged ownership and value | Ownership must be proven by actual or special owner with sufficient right to possession | Indictment's ownership sufficiency is proper under expanded owner concept | Affirmed: indictment naming HP/Leahy as owner sufficient; value proven through agent testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (owner must be same person as shown by evidence; name not substantive element)
- Harrell v. State, 852 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (special owner is one in custody or control of property)
- Freeman v. State, 707 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (owner defined expansively; possessory interest suffices)
- Weaver v. State, 982 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (aggregation and venue principles for single-scheme theft)
- Tita v. State, 267 S.W.3d 33 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (limitations period begins at last theft; aggregation doctrine)