Wirth v. State, 2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 480

Appellant Wirth was convicted of theft of $20,000 or more but less than $100,000; Sixth Court of Appeals reversed for factual insufficiency and acquittal, prompting discretionary review.
Appellant owned a car-leasing business acting as intermediary between dealerships and customers; James Rogers, the general manager, could issue sight drafts but reportedly not authorized to issue checks.
In March 2005 the business closed, bank accounts were withdrawn, and five dealerships found worthless drafts totaling over $500,000; attempts to contact Wirth failed.
Bank account manager testified the business often had insufficient funds to honor drafts before closing; Wirth had controlled finances, banking, and payments for the business.
The indictment charged theft under a scheme involving transfer of automobile titles without owners’ effective consent, with deception defined in the jury charge; the jury convicted of the lesser-included offense of theft of $20,000–$99,999; the Court of Appeals found the evidence legally insufficient and acquittal was entered, which this Court reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence legally sufficient to support theft under a scheme involving deceit?	Wirth argues the evidence is insufficient to show intent to deprive at the time of taking.	Wirth argues no direct signing of drafts and insufficient conduct tying him to the transfers.	Yes; evidence sufficient to infer authorization and intent through party liability and control of finances.
Did the Court of Appeals properly review sufficiency with proper deference to the jury and Brooks v. State guidance?	State argues the Court of Appeals failed to defer to the jury and erred by selectively citing record.	Wirth contends the Court of Appeals correctly reviewed de novo as to legal sufficiency.	No; Court of Appeals failed to defer appropriately, and the evidence viewed in the light most favorable supports the verdict.

Wilson v. State, 663 S.W.2d 834 (Tex. Cr. App. 1984) (relevant to intent to deprive and pretext coverages in theft by contract)
Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Cr. App. 2004) (review of sufficiency considering pre- and post-offense conduct)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Baker v. State, 986 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998) (evidence required for contract-based theft; falsity/intent standards)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010) (overruled Clewis; governs sufficiency review)