Schelling, Rochelle, PD-0438-15

Appellant Rochelle Schelling was convicted of theft in a bench trial in Gregg County, Texas.
The State filed a sentence-enhancement under Section 31.03(e)(4)(D) based on prior theft convictions.
During the underlying incident, Schelling placed items in a shopping cart but did not exit the store with the merchandise.
The Court of Appeals held the evidence legally sufficient to show control over the property and a completed theft.
Schelling argued the facts show only an attempt, not a completed theft, and requested dismissal or remand for proper theft-completion analysis.
The Court discusses whether leaving the premises is required for theft to be completed and distinguishes Hill v. State.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether shoplifting facts constitute a completed theft	Schelling argues facts show only attempt, not completed theft	State contends evidence supported completed theft beyond mere preparation	The evidence supports a completed theft

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (evidence review for legal sufficiency under Jackson standard)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (reliability of sufficiency review)
Brown v. State, 333 S.W.3d 606 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (illustrates sufficiency review framework)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discusses standard of review for conflicts in testimony)
Hill v. State, 633 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (distinguishes completion of theft from mere exposure)