State v. Cotton, 194 So. 3d 69

In August 2013 James E. Cotton was charged with (1) theft ($500–$1,500) and (2) identity theft ($500–$1,500) based on unauthorized purchases on a Wex Fleet gas card bearing his name and his employer’s name.
Victim Monica Smith testified Cotton pumped $25 of diesel into her vehicle and obtained $20 in cash; police later seized a Wex Fleet card from Cotton in his car.
Employer Grady Crawford Construction’s records showed the card was assigned to Cotton, required a PIN and odometer entry, and recorded about $1,788 in purchases made when Cotton was not working.
At trial Cotton was convicted on count one (theft) and on count two (identity theft for $1,788); he received concurrent four-year hard labor sentences on each count.
On appeal the court reviewed sufficiency of evidence first, affirmed the theft conviction and sentence, but reversed the identity-theft conviction and sentence for failure to prove use of another person’s personal identifying information.
Cotton also argued the State revoked a plea offer after he made partial restitution; the court found no enforceable plea agreement or detrimental reliance and rejected that claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for theft between $500–$1,500	State: circumstantial and direct evidence (card in Cotton’s possession, card bore his name, employer transaction records, surveillance) proves Cotton committed theft and amount	Cotton: State only tied him to the $25 Smith transaction and failed to prove he made other unauthorized purchases or the valuation (Wex statement hearsay)	Affirmed: Circumstantial and unobjected-to transaction evidence sufficed to prove identity and valuation beyond a reasonable doubt
Sufficiency of evidence for identity theft	State: employer is a “person” and card number/account show misuse constituting identity theft	Cotton: State failed to prove he used another person’s personal identifying information; card identified him and functioned as his personal identifier	Reversed: State failed to prove use of another’s personal identifying information — essential element of identity theft
Revocation of alleged plea offer (reliance on restitution)	Cotton: relied on prior prosecutor’s promise; made partial restitution and was entitled to enforcement	State: no binding plea deal formed; successor prosecutor revoked any offer before conditions were met; no prejudicial detrimental reliance or bad faith	Rejected: No enforceable agreement or prejudicial reliance; State may withdraw offer before plea entered

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992) (appellate sequence: review sufficiency before other errors)
State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La. 1988) (appellate review and deference to jury credibility determinations)
State v. Ordodi, 946 So.2d 654 (La. 2006) (application of Jackson standard in Louisiana)
State v. Calloway, 1 So.3d 417 (La. 2009) (courts should not substitute their credibility findings for the jury’s)
State v. Louis, 645 So.2d 1144 (La. 1994) (plea agreement enforcement analyzed under contract principles plus defendant’s broader constitutional fairness rights)
State v. Caminita, 411 So.2d 13 (La. 1982) (State may withdraw plea offers before plea entry absent detrimental reliance)