Johnny Ray Partain v. State
13-16-00080-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- In June 2014, homeowner Dennis Stahl paid Atlas Technologies (owner Johnny Ray Partain) $24,369.24 for a custom 80 kW Generac generator and related equipment; an Atlas invoice and Stahl's cancelled check were admitted at trial.
- The transfer switch and mobile link items (totaling $5,292) were delivered; the generator was not delivered within the parties’ disputed oral timeframe and was ultimately cancelled by Generac for nonpayment.
- Bank records and Generac records showed wire transfers from Atlas in June 2014 for other Generac products; Atlas’s bank balances were low in summer 2014, and Partain testified funds cycled through multiple accounts.
- Communications show Partain initially promised delivery or refund options and later stopped responding; SPI detectives notified Partain to cease contact and opened a theft investigation; Stahl bought a replacement generator from another vendor and filed civil suit.
- A grand jury indicted Partain for theft of $20,000–$100,000; the indictment was amended to $1,500–$20,000 (state jail felony). A jury convicted; the trial court sentenced Partain to community supervision and restitution. Partain appealed pro se.
- The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed and rendered an acquittal, finding insufficient evidence that Partain had the requisite intent to deprive Stahl at the contract’s formation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Partain) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of intent for theft where sale involved a contract | Bank and Generac records plus Atlas’s low balances permit inference that Partain never intended to deliver and used Stahl’s funds for other business expenses | Contractual dispute only; intent to deprive cannot be inferred from later financial trouble or partial performance | Reversed — insufficient evidence that Partain intended to deprive Stahl at contract formation; conviction cannot stand |
| Whether criminality can be predicated on failure to perform a contract | State: contractor can be guilty if intent to deprive existed at outset or if deception induced payment while no intent to perform | Partain: partial performance and later inability to pay show civil breach, not criminal theft | Court applied law requiring proof of fraud/deception beyond mere nonperformance and found State’s evidence speculative; no conviction |
| (Reserved) Due process and other trial errors raised by Partain | Partain alleged vindictive prosecution, undisclosed evidence, improper argument, and denial of appellate counsel | State defended trial conduct; trial court rulings stand unless conviction valid | Not addressed on merits — appellate court did not reach these because sufficiency issue was dispositive |
| Appropriateness of acquittal remedy on insufficient evidence | State might argue remand for new trial | Partain seeks reversal and acquittal | Court rendered acquittal (reversed judgment and entered acquittal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for legal-sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency standard for jury verdicts)
- Taylor v. State, 450 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (theft in contract settings requires proof of false pretext/fraud or intent at time of taking)
- Ehrhardt v. State, 334 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (contractor intent to deprive can form after contract but requires additional deprivation tied to that intent)
- Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (evidence raising only suspicion is insufficient to support conviction)
- Villarreal v. State, 286 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (measure sufficiency against a hypothetically correct jury charge)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (elements and charge-related sufficiency principles)