Paul Munoz III v. State, 11-14-00327-CR

Appellant Paul Munoz III was convicted by a jury of two counts of theft (>$1,500 and < $20,000) and sentenced to ten years’ confinement on each count after pleading true to one enhancement paragraph.
Daniel Ruiz took his 2002 Camaro to Munoz’s auto shop in April 2010 to have the engine replaced; Ruiz paid $2,100 in advance (engine, shipping, and additional requested amounts).
The car remained in the shop for years; Munoz gave repeated excuses, Ruiz recorded conversations, and Munoz later agreed to buy the Camaro for $4,000 but never paid or returned the car.
By trial time roughly 4.5 years had passed with the car dismantled and parts missing; Ruiz sent a demand letter and got no payment.
The State introduced prior theft convictions of Munoz (theft by deception in similar automotive/repair contexts) to show intent; Munoz did not request a mistake-of-fact instruction nor assert a mistake defense at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Munoz)	Held
1. Sufficiency of the evidence to support theft convictions	Evidence (payments, excuses, lengthy withholding, prior similar convictions) supports finding Munoz intended not to perform	Munoz claimed reasonable mistaken belief about repair costs/parts availability, negating intent	Court: Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed
2. Due process denial based on insufficiency	N/A (relies on sufficiency)	Munoz argues conviction violates Due Process if evidence insufficient	Court: Because evidence sufficient, no Due Process violation; claim overruled
3. Admission of extraneous-offense/bad-check evidence	State: prior convictions admissible to show intent under Penal §31.03(c)(1)	Munoz: trial court erred admitting extraneous bad-act evidence (insufficient-check exhibits)	Court: Munoz failed to preserve complaint (no adverse ruling on those exhibits); admitted prior theft judgments were admissible; issue overruled
4. Prosecutor’s closing argument at punishment (asserting potentially others unpaid)	N/A (argument used to support punishment)	Munoz: prosecutor misstated evidence by suggesting there were potentially other unpaid victims	Court: Munoz failed to object at trial, so complaint waived; issue overruled

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (discusses application of Jackson standard in Texas)
Taylor v. State, 450 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (proof required for theft by deception: intent at time of inducement)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (Due Process requires proof beyond reasonable doubt)
Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (distinguishing burdens for defensive claims vs affirmative defenses)