Perkins v. State

Defendant was convicted of theft.1 His appeal questions only the sufficiency of the evidence “. . . to support the conclusion that . . . [he] in any way exerted control over the property with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of said property.”

The evidence most favorable to appellee comes from the State’s only witness, the general manager of Tom O’Brien Company, Inc., a new automobile dealership. His testimony establishes the following:

*596Because of past incidents of theft at the dealership the manager was in the habit of checking the premises from time-to-time when it was closed…