Providing Strategic, Personalized Defense in Harris County
Theft in Texas is charged under Texas Penal Code §31.03 and covers every situation where a person unlawfully appropriates property with the intent to deprive the owner of it. The charge level is determined almost entirely by the value of the property involved, ranging from a Class C misdemeanor for amounts under $100 all the way to a first-degree felony for amounts over $300,000. A conviction at any level creates a permanent criminal record.
The value of the property is not the only thing that determines the outcome of a theft case. The state must also prove that the appropriation was unlawful and that you intended to deprive the owner of the property. Intent is not always as obvious as the police report makes it appear. Disputed ownership, good faith belief in a right to the property, and transactions where payment or permission was expected but not received can all produce theft charges that the state cannot ultimately sustain.
Even a Class B misdemeanor theft conviction, which covers property valued between $100 and $750, creates a permanent record of dishonesty that appears on background checks for employment, housing, and professional licensing. Retail employers, financial institutions, and government contractors routinely disqualify applicants with theft convictions regardless of the amount involved. The collateral consequences of a conviction frequently outweigh the direct penalties imposed by the court.
At David Smith Law Firm, every theft case begins with a detailed review of how the state intends to establish both the unlawful appropriation and the intent elements. We understand how these cases are built and where the evidentiary foundation most often falls short, particularly on the intent question.
Shoplifting is prosecuted as theft in Texas. The state must prove that merchandise was taken without payment and that the intent to steal was present at the time. Loss prevention procedures, the manner of the apprehension, and the reliability of surveillance footage are all factors that must be examined carefully before accepting that the state’s evidence tells the full story.
A check written on insufficient funds or a closed account can support a theft by check charge if the state can establish that the defendant knew the funds were unavailable at the time of the transaction. Knowledge and intent at the moment the check was written are the central legal questions, and both are frequently more contested than the bank records suggest.
Once the alleged property value reaches $2,500, theft becomes a state jail felony. The state’s valuation of the property is a critical element that is not always supported by the evidence. Retail replacement prices, insurance valuations, and market values can differ significantly, and we examine the basis for the state’s valuation carefully.
Theft of service charges can arise from situations involving unpaid work, unauthorized use of utilities or telecommunications, or failure to pay for services after receiving them. The state must establish both that services were received and that the defendant intentionally avoided payment. These cases often involve disputed facts about what was agreed to and when.
The intent to deprive the owner permanently is the element that distinguishes theft from borrowing, from a disputed transaction, and from a good faith mistake. The state bears the burden of proving this intent beyond a reasonable doubt, and that burden requires more than showing that property was taken and not returned. We examine every piece of evidence the state intends to use to establish intent and challenge the inferences the prosecution asks the jury to draw from the circumstances of the alleged taking.
Our firm reviews the full context of how the alleged offense occurred, including any prior relationship between the parties, any evidence of consent or permission, and the circumstances surrounding the transaction or taking. In many theft cases, the facts look straightforward on the police report and significantly more complicated once the full context is examined. Early legal involvement gives us the best opportunity to develop that context before the case reaches a critical juncture.
