162 Ind. App. 314 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1974
Appellant was convicted of theft and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years and fined $500.00. He appeals, contending that there is no evidence that his control over a typewriter was “unthorized”. We find the evidence sufficient and therefore affirm.
The State’s evidence
Appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that the State failed to prove that his control over the typewriter was “unauthorized”.
■Such circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. Vaughn v. State (1971), 255 Ind. 678, 266 N.E.2d 219; McAfee v. State (1973), 259 Ind. 687, 291 N.E.2d 554.
The judgment is affirmed.
Sullivan, P.J., and Buchanan, J., concur.
Note. — Reported at 319 N.E.2d 672.
. Appellant neither testified himself nor called any witnesses.
. IC 1971, 35-17-5-3, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3030 (Burns 1974 Supp.), as pertaining to the affidavit filed herein, provides:
“A person commits theft when he
“(1) knowingly:
“(a) obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property of the owner; [and] ij: sj;
“(2) either:
“(a) intends to deprive the owner of the use or benefit of the property;”