OPINION
At 8:15 p. m. on April 9, 1976, Leonard Grimmett and his brother Larnell Richard Grimmett, entered the T. G. & Y. store located at 1024 S.E. 44th, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, passed the сheck-out stand operated by Ralph Gibson, Assistant Manager, proceeded to the men’s department where Security Officer James Hall observed them remove shirts from the rack and alternatеly walk 15 feet to the corner of the building, and squat down and wrap the shirts аround their legs. Officer Hall notified Ralph Gibson and as Leonard Grimmett passed through the check stand without paying, Hall followed him out of the store. Larnell Richard Grimmett left the store some 20 feet behind his brothеr and Officer Hall, without paying for the merchandise, and he was followed out of the store by Assistant Manager Gibson.
The two brothers were .arrested by Officer Hall, and searched, and one shirt valued at $11.88 was rеmoved from the leg of Leonard Grimmett and two shirts valued at $9.97 each were removed from the legs of Larnell Richard Grimmett. The two brothers were charged conjointly and together with the offense of Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1731. Both waived preliminary examination and when Larnell Richard Grimmett failed to appear for trial, Lеonard Grim-mett was tried separately and found guilty as charged. He wаs sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment and appeals.
On appeal he argues that the evidence was insufficient to suрport the verdict of the jury, in that the proof was insufficient to establish that he and his brother acted conjointly and together, and therefore the shirt which he stole did not exceed the value of $20.00. This assignment of error is patently frivolous.
The value of the three shirts excеeded $30.00, and the direct and circumstantial evidence clearly supports the jury’s verdict that Leonard Grimmett acted conjointly аnd together with Larnell Richard Grim-mett in the offense of Larceny of Merchandise From a Retailer with value of more than twenty-dollars, Aftеr Former Conviction of a Felony. Compare Austin
v. State,
Okl.Cr.,
As his final assignment of error, he asserts that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on cirсumstantial evidence although none was requested. He
*274
relies on
Knight v. State,
We find that the evidence was both direct and circumstantiаl and therefore, applying these standards, we find it was not error to fail to give an instruction on circumstantial evidence. Howevеr, had all the evidence been circumstantial it would not be so weak or improbable as to require a reversal for failure tо instruct on circumstantial evidence.
For the above and foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and the same is hereby AFFIRMED.