Seidel v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Seidel v. State

654 S.W.2d 39

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 16, 1983

Docket05-83-00027-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 654 S.W.2d 39 (Seidel v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seidel v. State, 654 S.W.2d 39 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

STEPHENS, Justice.

John Sheldon Seidel was sentenced to three years imprisonment, probated, fined $500, and ordered to pay restitution of $1,250 upon his conviction for theft of property of a value of at least $200 but less than $10,000. Among four grounds of error presented to us for review, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the value of the property stolen was at least $200.00. We agree, and accordingly we reverse and order appellant acquitted.

The complaining witness was a builder who had been losing shrubbery from the yards of two of his vacant houses. He [40]*40marked six of the remaining plants with paint and while hiding in one of the vacant houses observed two men pull some of the shrubs and take them to appellant’s garage. The police were notified and the next day confronted the appellant, questioned him about the theft, and were invited by appellant to search his garage. Their search turned up the six marked plants, as well as many other unmarked plants. At trial the builder admitted that he could identify only the plants sprayed with black paint as property stolen from him. The evidence shows the greatest value of any one plant to be $26.00. Consequently, we conclude that the proven value of the stolen property was less than $200.00.

Reversed and the appellant is ordered acquitted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STEPHENS, Justice.

John Sheldon Seidel was sentenced to three years imprisonment, probated, fined $500, and ordered to pay restitution of $1,250 upon his conviction for theft of property of a value of at least $200 but less than $10,000. Among four grounds of error presented to us for review, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the value of the property stolen was at least $200.00. We agree, and accordingly we reverse and order appellant acquitted.

The complaining witness was a builder who had been losing shrubbery from the yards of two of his vacant houses. He [40]*40marked six of the remaining plants with paint and while hiding in one of the vacant houses observed two men pull some of the shrubs and take them to appellant’s garage. The police were notified and the next day confronted the appellant, questioned him about the theft, and were invited by appellant to search his garage. Their search turned up the six marked plants, as well as many other unmarked plants. At trial the builder admitted that he could identify only the plants sprayed with black paint as property stolen from him. The evidence shows the greatest value of any one plant to be $26.00. Consequently, we conclude that the proven value of the stolen property was less than $200.00.

Reversed and the appellant is ordered acquitted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 S.W.2d 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seidel-v-state-texapp-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack