Background
Jared Castillo accepted $17,915 from Big Starr Electric and businessman Todd Danley for an electronic advertising sign the two customers planned to share. Although the contract called for delivery within ten to twelve weeks, Castillo cashed or deposited both customers’ checks and never delivered the sign or refunded their money. After initially saying the sign remained “in the process,” he stopped communicating with the customers.
Castillo testified that he had ordered the sign from China and that it was delivered to the Dallas–Fort Worth area while he was jailed on another theft charge. He attributed his failure to retrieve and deliver it to serious health problems, incarceration, financial difficulties, and accumulated storage fees. The State presented evidence that Castillo had engaged in similar transactions with other customers by accepting payment, failing to deliver signs, and eventually ending communications. A jury convicted him of state-jail-felony theft, assessed twenty-one months’ confinement and a $5,000 fine, and the trial court ordered $17,915 in restitution.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Castillo unlawfully appropriated the customers’ money with the intent to deprive them of it. Because a contractual failure alone does not establish theft, the State had to show that Castillo obtained the money through fraud or false pretext and possessed the required criminal intent when he accepted the payments.
The court concluded that the State met that burden through evidence of Castillo’s conduct before, during, and after the transaction, including his failure to deliver or refund the purchase price, his termination of communications, and his history of similar dealings with other customers. The jury was entitled to reject Castillo’s explanations and infer that the customers’ consent was ineffective because it had been induced by deception. The court therefore overruled Castillo’s sole appellate issue and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to perform a contract, standing alone, does not prove theft; the State must present additional evidence that the defendant intended or knew at the outset that the promised performance would not occur.
- Evidence of recent, similar transactions may support an inference that a defendant acted with knowledge or intent to deprive customers of their property.
- An appellate court reviewing evidentiary sufficiency defers to the jury’s resolution of conflicting testimony and views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the line between an ordinary contractual breach and criminal theft under Texas law. Evidence of a broader pattern—taking advance payments, failing to perform, and cutting off communication—can allow a jury to find that the transaction was deceptive from its inception rather than merely an unsuccessful business arrangement.
It also underscores that a defendant’s evidence of partial performance or alternative explanations does not necessarily negate criminal intent. When competing inferences are supported by the record, the reviewing court generally must defer to the jury’s credibility determinations.