that he was on S.L.’s property, and he admitted that he took cigarettes and a lighter from the patio table. According to the recorded statement that Andrus gave to Detective Le-wállen, after' entering S.L.’s garage, An-drus changed his mind about being on S.L.’s property and decided to leave. The evidence at trial shows that Andrus did not have permission to be on the property or in S.L.’s garage or breezeway. Given the circumstances proven by the evidence admitted during Andrus’s trial, the jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that Andrus, when entering the garage or breezeway, intended to commit theft under a standard of beyond reasonable doubt even if he later changed his mind - about committing a crime. See Mauldin v. State, 628 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (<HOLDING>); Solis v. State, 589 S.W.2d 444, 446
holding defendants plea to indictment alleging 8000 theft was not an admission to the theft amount holding that against her will in the rape statute means without her consent and that the fact that the victim was under the age of consent was sufficient to establish that element holding that the defendants entry into the building having been made in the nighttime without the consent of the owner is sufficient to show an intent to commit theft holding that the plaintiff must show felonious intent to commit theft in order to establish a violation of section 8120141 holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile