Kenashica Darpre Davison v. State, 14-15-00511-CR

Appellant Kenashica Davison was indicted for state-jail felony theft for allegedly leaving a T.J. Maxx store with two purses valued by the store at $2,349.98.
Store loss-prevention and management witnesses identified Davison on surveillance video and introduced a store “receipt” and photos from video to show the items and ticketed prices.
One investigator testified the department targeted is a high-dollar area where single-item removals are typically felony-level.
A store investigator later testified one purse was priced $100 lower than the receipt, and witnesses acknowledged markdowns sometimes occur and the store does not keep full logs of markdowns or theft-value changes.
Defense requested a jury instruction on the lesser-included Class A misdemeanor theft (value between $500 and $1,500), asserting evidence (possible markdowns, inconsistent pricing records) provided more than a scintilla supporting that alternative; the trial court refused.
Appellant was convicted of the felony and sentenced under an agreed enhanced range; on appeal she argued the court erred by denying the lesser-included instruction and that she suffered some harm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Davison)	Held
Whether Class A misdemeanor theft is a legally available lesser-included offense of the charged state-jail felony theft	The evidence supports the felony valuation; differences are only in value and the statutory elements yield felony; the court properly refused the misdemeanor instruction because the record did not support it	Misdemeanor theft is a lesser-included offense under the statute and rules because it differs only by value; the record contains more than a scintilla of evidence (price discrepancies, markdown practice, lack of reliable logs) that the value may have been below felony level	The court concluded misdemeanor theft is a lesser-included offense and that the factual record contained more than a scintilla supporting submission to the jury; refusal to instruct was error
Whether appellant preserved error and, if so, whether the charge error required reversal	The State would argue the error was harmless because witnesses uniformly testified value exceeded $1,500 and jury could reasonably find felony	Davison argued she objected and requested the instruction, so reversal is required if there was "some harm" from the erroneous charge exclusion	Because defense timely objected/requested, the Almanza standard applies; denial of the lesser instruction caused at least some harm by removing a valid, less-punitive alternative; reversible error was argued

Almanza v. State, 645 S.W.2d 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (standard for reversible harm from jury-charge errors)
Hall v. State, 255 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (legal test for determining lesser‑included offenses)
Olivas v. State, 202 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (application of Almanza harm standard to charge errors)
Haley v. State, 369 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (application of "some harm" standard when defendant objects to jury charge)