of the property obtained was TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000) OR MORE.” De la Fuente maintains that the State failed to prove that the amounts stolen fell within the alleged monetary range in all but three paragraphs of the indictment. In support, De la Fuente prepared a table reflecting each complainant; he reasons that because in each instance some work was performed, or some money was refunded in connection with a “settlement,” there is no amount of money owed within the range alleged in the indictment. He claims that because the jury charge used the conjunctive word “and,” the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed all twenty-five thefts in the amounts alleged. See Hernandez v. State, 841 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1992, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). We disagree. When a defendant is charged with
holding that charge error that allowed jury to convict appellant for an unindicted offense caused egregious harm holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense holding that by failing to object to charge state was required to prove all nine thefts listed in the conjunctive before jury was authorized to convict defendant of aggregated theft offense holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court holding charge error which authorized jury to convict without finding every requisite element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt was egregious based on the entirety of the charge the contested evidence and the arguments of counsel