Zakee Kaleem Abdullah A/K/A Robert White v. State, 06-11-00135-CR

Abdullah (aka Robert White) was convicted of theft of property valued between $1,500 and $20,000 after a bench trial in Bowie County, Texas, and sentenced to two years in state jail.
The victim, Rosie L. Duckett, paid Abdullah $2,000 for purported legal services and $1,500 for help with a medical malpractice claim, believing Abdullah to be an attorney.
Duckett signed written agreements promising the money would be returned if the worker’s compensation claim was unsuccessful.
Abdullah allegedly deceived Duckett about his identity and abilities, including misrepresenting his status and capabilities as a lawyer; he was a convicted felon on parole at the time.
Duckett was later given a letter from Abdullah claiming his money was seized in a drug bust, which turned out to be false; she learned Abdullah was not actually arrested and was not pursuing Duckett’s claims.
The State pursued a theory of theft by deception, alleging Abdullah unlawfully acquired Duckett’s money without her effective consent, with intent to deprive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for theft	Abdullah failed to show valid consent; misrepresentation negates consent.	Evidence did not prove unlawful appropriation or intent to deprive beyond dispute.	Sufficient evidence supports theft by deception; conviction affirmed.
Correctness of denying motion to quash	Indictment omission of manner of appropriation deprived notice, violating due process.	Due process satisfied by notice through other means; failure to allege manner did not prejudice defense.	denial of motion to quash was harmless error; conviction affirmed.

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for legal sufficiency—any rational jury could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1979) (proportional standard for legal sufficiency)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge governs sufficiency review)
Baker v. State, 986 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998) (theft in a contract requires proof of lack of entitlement and non-performance)
Phares v. State, 301 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009) (contract-based theft requires more than mere non-performance)
Jacobs v. State, 230 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (for contract theft, must show defendant knew he was not entitled to money)
Geick v. State, 349 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (hypothetically correct charge includes all statutory methods of theft)
Askari v. State, 129 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (motion to quash may trigger State to specify manner of unlawful appropriation)
Kellar v. State, 108 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (due process notice may be satisfied by sources other than charging instrument)
Hughen v. State, 265 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (due process notice requirements; blending with Askari and Kellar)
L.B.L. Oil Co. v. International Power Servs., Inc., 777 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1989) (appearance and notice concepts precedent for due process)