United States v. Richardson

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
March 27, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50867
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD F. RICHARDSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-02-CR-105-ALL
USDC No. SA-01-M-263-ALL
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Richardson appeals from a conviction for theft of
Government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Richardson
argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding
that he intended to steal the merchandise from the military base
exchange (PX). He contends that the evidence equally supported a
finding of guilty and innocence.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-50867
-2-
The standard of review for his sufficiency challenge
is “whether, considering all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have
found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.” United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th
Cir. 2000). The Government was required to show that Richardson
intended to steal the merchandise. See 18 U.S.C. § 641;
United States v. Aguilar, 967 F.2d 111, 112 (5th Cir. 1992).
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish criminal
intent. See United States v. Haas, 171 F.3d 259, 265-66
(5th Cir. 1999).
The testimony from two PX security personnel established
sufficient evidence to allow the jury to infer Richard’s intent
to steal the merchandise. Richardson introduced no evidence in
support of his theory that a friend had intended to take the
item from him and put in on lay-away. From the circumstantial
evidence introduced through the testimony of the PX personnel,
the jury’s finding of guilt was reasonable and not subject to the
Richardson’s argument of equipoise. The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --