JOE, DARYL v. the State of Texas

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0423-23

DARYL JOE, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
NAVARRO COUNTY

PARKER, J., filed a concurring opinion in which FINLEY, J., joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

I join the Court’s opinion but write separately to respond to one claim made by

Judge Yeary’s dissent and strongly implied by Judge Keel’s dissent. That claim is

that Lang1 held that the retail- theft statute does not apply to the lone shoplifter. I do

not read Lang’s construction of the retail-theft statute to be that narrow. Lang said,

1
Lang v. State, 561 S.W.3d 174, 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
JOE CONCURRENCE — 2

“[T]his statute does not apply to the conduct of an ordinary shoplifter acting alone.”2

“Ordinary” is an important word. Lang does not preclude a retail-theft conviction for

a lone shoplifter if the shoplifter engages in an activity in addition to the theft,3 such

as advertising the stolen goods for sale on the internet.

Filed: November 20, 2025
Publish

2
Id. at 176 (emphasis added).
3
Id. at 183 (“As we have explained above, the statute requires proof of some activity
undertaken with respect to stolen retail merchandise that goes beyond the conduct inherent in
ordinary shoplifting.”).