Rochelle Schelling v. State, 06-14-00173-CR

Appellant Rochelle Schelling was indicted for theft (enhanced by two prior theft convictions) for pushing a Walmart shopping cart containing $526.19 of unpurchased merchandise toward the store exit on July 31, 2013.
Store employee Destinee Jeffery observed Schelling push the unbagged, unreceipted items past the registers and theft detectors toward the exit, asked for a receipt, and when none was produced Schelling said she would go to her car for money but did not return to pay.
Surveillance video and employee testimony show Schelling passed the point-of-sale area and theft detectors and attempted to avoid detection; she was intercepted and detained by store personnel and police before exiting the store.
Schelling admitted the theft in the store’s asset-protection room; employees scanned the items and gave the total to police. No Walmart employee consented to her taking the items.
The trial court found the State proved appropriation, intent to deprive, and lack of consent and convicted Schelling of theft habitual (state jail felony); she appealed arguing insufficiency because she never left the premises.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leaving the premises is an element of theft	State: No; appropriation and intent suffice even if interrupted before exit	Schelling: Insufficient evidence because she never exited the store with the property	Court: Exit not required; evidence of appropriation, intent, and lack of consent sufficient
Whether pushing a cart past registers/detectors constitutes appropriation	State: Pushing past point-of-sale and detectors while avoiding receipt-checker shows exercise of control and intent to deprive	Schelling: No completed appropriation or acquisition of control because she was stopped before leaving	Court: Exercise of control and intent proved despite interruption; constitutes appropriation
Whether lack of owner consent was proven	State: Employee testimony that no one authorized removal establishes lack of consent	Schelling: Implied argument that interception frustrated completion so consent issue irrelevant	Court: Employee testimony adequately established no owner consent
Standard of review for sufficiency challenge	State: Jackson v. Virginia governs; defer to factfinder, view evidence in light most favorable to verdict	Schelling: N/A (applies same standard)	Court: Applied Jackson; assessed cumulative circumstantial evidence and affirmed sufficiency

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for conviction)
Hill v. State, 633 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (appropriation requires control plus intent to deprive; removal from premises not required)
Barnes v. State, 513 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (attempted taking interrupted before absconding can still support theft conviction)
Jarrott v. State, 1 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 1927) (fraudulent appropriation may constitute theft even without removal from owner’s premises)