OPINION
Appeal is taken from a conviction for felony theft.
On August 4, 1972, thе appellant entered a plea оf guilty after waiving trial by jury. Punishment was assessed at three yеars.
Appellant contends that the evidenсe is insufficient to support the conviction.
Article 1.15, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., provides that where a jury is waived in а felony case, “it shall be necessary for the state to introduce evidence into the record showing the guilt of the defendant * * * and in no event shall a person charged be convictеd upon his plea without sufficient evidence to support the same.”
The State introduced into evidence appellant’s confessiоn taken at the Grand Prairie Police Depаrtment on April 30, 1972, without objection. Appellant tоok the stand and testified that the contents of thе statement were “substantially true and correct.” No further testimony was offered. Thus, we must look to appellant’s confession in determining the sufficiеncy of the evidence, the pertinent pоrtion of which reads:
“Last night about 11:30 I was with a friend of minе, Carlton Russell. I told him I wanted to (sic) home and he sаid he would take me. I told him I wanted out on 8th street. We drove down 8th and I got out at the Fox Hollar Apts. I lоoked in some cars and in this car it didnt (sic) look like you would have to have a key. It was a white 62 Chеv convertable (sic). The door wasnt (sic) loсked and I got in and tried to start it. It started and I drove off. The police stopped me and arrеsted me.”
The indictment alleged that the automobile was the property of Richard Dudeck, and that it was taken from the possession of Richard Dudeck without his consent.
There is a complеte absence of evidence that Richаrd Dudeck was the owner of the vehicle, and thаt it was taken from his possession without his consent. Thus, the State has failed to prove an essential element of the offense of theft. Article 1410, Vеrnon’s Ann.P.C. See 5 Branch’s Ann. P.C.2d, Sec. 2639.
Further, the convictiоn is for felony theft, the indictment alleging that the autоmobile was “of the value of $350, and being of the total value of over $50.00.”
An examination of appellant’s confession, the only evidence offered in this case, reflects that there is no evidence to sustain the allegation of thе indictment that the property alleged to have been stolen was of the value of over Fifty Dollars.
It is fundamental that a felony theft conviction cannot be sustained unless the value of the item alleged in the indictment is proved to be over $50.00. Ballinger v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
The evider-ic in the instant case is insufficient to support the conviction.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Opinion approved by the Court.