Jimmy Arebalo v. State

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS, AT AUSTIN NO. 3-92-412-CR JIMMY AREBALO, APPELLANT vs. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 0921749, HONORABLE TOM BLACKWELL, JUDGE PRESIDING PER CURIAM A jury found appellant guilty of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.07 (West 1989). The district court assessed punishment at imprisonment for ten years. By a single point of error, appellant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. On March 12, 1992, a gray 1985 Buick Regal, license plate number 388 GWK, was stolen from a parking garage in downtown Austin. Appellant was identified by the parking garage attendant as the man she saw drive away from the garage in the stolen car. Suzanne Ball testified that she owned the stolen Buick Regal and did not give appellant permission to drive it. That same day, the security guard at a South Austin department store approached appellant, who the guard believed was trying to steal several cartons of cigarettes. As the guard watched, appellant left the store and drove away in a gray Buick Regal, license number 388 GWK. The next day, appellant returned to the department store and, this time, was detained after being caught shoplifting. Following his arrest, the gray Buick Regal was found in the store parking lot. The steering column had been broken to facilitate starting the car without a key. Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient because he was not shown to have operated the stolen car on March 13, 1992, the day of his arrest. This is irrelevant, however, because the indictment alleged and the jury found that he operated the vehicle on or about March 12, 1992. Two witnesses testified that they saw appellant driving the car on that date. Appellant further urges that the State failed to prove that Suzanne Ball owned the vehicle as alleged in the indictment. Although Ball testified that she owned the car, appellant argues that this was not sufficient. He contends the State was obligated to prove that Ball had title to the car, presumably by producing the document. The opinions cited by appellant do not support this contention. Abran v. State, 788 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App.--Houston 1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.); Hooper v. State, 788 S.W.2d 24, (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no pet.). The owner of property is the person who has title, possession, or greater right to possession than the actor. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(24)(a) (West Supp. 1993). Ownership of personal property may be proved by oral testimony. Smith v. State, 638 S.W.2d 476, 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). The evidence in this cause is sufficient to prove Ball's ownership of the stolen car. We hold that from the evidence in this cause, a rational trier of fact could find each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Griffin v. State, 614 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). The point of error is overruled. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. [Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Jones] Affirmed Filed: June 9, 1993 [Do Not Publish]