Quick reference
Texas Penal Code § 31.03 governs Theft in Texas. The statute can be read in full at Texas Statutes via Texas Legislature Online. Punishment ranges and defenses depend on the specific subsection and circumstances of each case. Below is L and L Law Group's plain-English summary plus the strategic considerations we use when defending Theft charges.
What Texas Penal Code § 31.03 says
Section 31.03 of the Texas Penal Code is the controlling Texas statute for Theft. The statute defines what conduct is criminalized, what mental state (mens rea) is required, and what penalties apply. The full statutory text is published at capitol.texas.gov and updated each odd-numbered legislative session.
Like every Texas criminal statute, § 31.03 must be read together with:
Texas punishment classifications
The punishment for an offense under § 31.03 depends on the specific subsection charged and any enhancement allegations in the indictment. Texas Penal Code Chapter 12 sets the punishment ranges:
| Classification | Range | Authority |
|---|
| Class C misdemeanor | Fine up to $500 (no jail) | § 12.23 |
| Class B misdemeanor | Up to 180 days county jail; up to $2,000 fine | § 12.22 |
| Class A misdemeanor | Up to 1 year county jail; up to $4,000 fine | § 12.21 |
| State jail felony | 180 days - 2 years state jail (no parole); up to $10,000 fine | § 12.35 |
| 3rd-degree felony | 2-10 years TDCJ; up to $10,000 fine | § 12.34 |
| 2nd-degree felony | 2-20 years TDCJ; up to $10,000 fine | § 12.33 |
| 1st-degree felony | 5-99 years or life TDCJ; up to $10,000 fine | § 12.32 |
| Capital felony | Life without parole or death penalty | § 12.31 |
Enhancements under § 12.42 (prior felony convictions) and § 12.43 (prior misdemeanor convictions) can move the punishment range upward. The State must plead enhancement paragraphs in the indictment to use them at sentencing.
How L and L Law Group defends Theft cases
Every § 31.03 prosecution requires the State to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense lawyer's job is to identify where the State's proof falls short. Common defense approaches in Theft cases:
- Constitutional defenses: Fourth Amendment suppression of evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure; Fifth Amendment / Miranda suppression of statements; Sixth Amendment right to counsel issues.
- Factual defenses: Mistaken identity, alibi, lack of corroboration, body-cam or surveillance contradictions of officer testimony.
- Legal defenses: Self-defense (Penal Code Chapter 9), necessity (§ 9.22), duress (§ 8.05), mistake of fact (§ 8.02), insanity (§ 8.01).
- Procedural defenses: Statute of limitations (CCP Article 12.01), speedy trial (Sixth Amendment), prosecutorial misconduct.
- Sentencing-phase defenses: Mitigation, character witnesses, treatment enrollment, employment verification, family support.
The right defense depends on the specific facts, the specific evidence the State has gathered, and the specific subsection charged.
Frequently asked questions
Is § 31.03 a felony in Texas?
The classification depends on the specific subsection and any enhancements alleged. Theft charges can range from Class C misdemeanor to 1st-degree felony in some cases. The indictment or information will specify the alleged classification.
What is the statute of limitations for Theft?
Most felonies in Texas have a 3-year statute of limitations under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 12.01, though some have no limitations period at all (capital felonies, certain offenses against children). Most misdemeanors have a 2-year limitations period under Article 12.02.
Can I get probation for an offense under § 31.03?
Probation eligibility depends on whether the offense is on the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42A.054(a) aggravated-offense list (formerly "3g offenses"). Most non-aggravated offenses are probation-eligible. For complete probation framework, see our punishment range page.
Can the charge be expunged later?
If the case ends in dismissal, acquittal, or no-bill, expunction under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 55 is available. If the case results in successful deferred adjudication, non-disclosure under Government Code § 411.0725 may apply (subject to exclusion list). See our expunction page.
Does this charge require sex offender registration?
Only offenses listed under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 62.001(5) require registration. Most non-sexual offenses do not. If you have been charged under § 31.03 and are uncertain, the indictment and statute will indicate whether registration attaches.
What if § 31.03 was amended recently?
Texas statutes are amended each odd-numbered year (regular session). For prosecutions, the law in effect at the time of the alleged offense controls. Recent amendments to Texas Penal Code can be tracked at capitol.texas.gov.
Can L and L Law Group help with my Theft case?
Yes. We handle Theft cases across Collin, Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, Rockwall, Kaufman, Ellis, and Hunt counties. Co-founding partners Reggie London (Texas Bar No. 24043514) and Njeri London (Texas Bar No. 24043266) take cases personally. Call (972) 370-5060 for a free, direct-to-attorney consultation.
Related resources at L and L Law Group
Elements of the Offense, Subsection by Subsection
Texas Penal Code § 31.03 defines Theft as the unlawful appropriation of property with intent to deprive the owner. The classification is graded by the value of the property under § 31.03(e).
§ 31.03(a) — Basic theft elements
A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
Plain English
The State alleges the defendant took or controlled property, the taking was unlawful, and the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner.
What the State must prove
- Appropriation of property (taking or exercising control)
- The appropriation was unlawful under § 31.03(b)
- Intent to deprive the owner of the property
Common defenses
- Claim of right or honest belief of ownership
- Lack of intent to deprive (intent to return)
- Mistake of fact
- Consent of the owner
§ 31.03(b) — When appropriation is unlawful
Appropriation of property is unlawful if: (1) it is without the owner's effective consent; (2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another...
Plain English
Section (b) lists the theories of unlawful appropriation. Most theft cases are charged under (b)(1) — without owner's effective consent. (b)(2) covers receiving stolen property; (b)(3) covers public-servant takings.
What the State must prove
- The specific (b) theory alleged in the charging instrument
- For (b)(2): knowledge the property was stolen
- Lack of effective consent under § 31.01(3)
Common defenses
- Owner gave consent (express or implied)
- Lack of knowledge the property was stolen
- Innocent receipt of property
§ 31.03(e) — Value-based classifications
Except as provided by Subsections (f), (g), and (h), an offense under this section is: (1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the property stolen is less than $100; (2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the property stolen is $100 or more but less than $750; (3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property stolen is $750 or more but less than $2,500; (4) a state jail felony if the value is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000...
Plain English
Theft is graded by value. The tiers run from Class C (under $100) up through 1st-degree felony (over $300,000). The valuation date is the date of the offense.
What the State must prove
- Value of the property at the time of the offense
- Fair market value or replacement cost under § 31.08
Common defenses
- Challenge to the State's valuation evidence
- Aggregation issues if the State combines multiple thefts under § 31.09
§ 31.03(f) — Penalty enhancements
An offense described for purposes of punishment by Subsections (e)(1)-(6) is increased to the next higher category of offense if it is shown on the trial of the offense that: ... the actor was a public servant who came into custody or possession of the property by virtue of his status as a public servant; ... the owner of the property appropriated was a nonprofit organization; ... the offense was committed against an elderly individual...
Plain English
Section (f) lists specific categories — elderly victims, public-servant actors, certain property types — that bump the classification one level up.
What the State must prove
- All elements of the underlying theft
- The specific (f) enhancement alleged
- For elderly-victim enhancement: knowledge of victim's age
Common defenses
- Challenge to the enhancement element
- Lack of knowledge of victim's status
§ 31.09 — Aggregation
When amounts are obtained in violation of this chapter pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct, whether from the same or several sources, the conduct may be considered as one offense and the amounts aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.
Plain English
If the State proves multiple thefts were committed pursuant to one scheme or continuing course, the values can be combined to raise the classification — for example, fifty $100 thefts can become one state-jail felony.
What the State must prove
- Multiple thefts under § 31.03
- Pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct
- Aggregated value supports the alleged classification
Common defenses
- Each theft was separate, not part of one scheme
- Statute of limitations on earlier thefts within the aggregation
Common Scenarios
These hypothetical scenarios illustrate how Texas Penal Code § 31.03 applies. They are educational examples — not predictions about any specific case.
Scenario 1: Shoplifting under $2,500
A defendant who, in a Plano department store, leaves the store with items concealed in a bag without paying. Under § 31.03, this conduct could constitute Theft, classified by the value of the items taken.
Key consideration: Theft is classified by value under § 31.03(e); under $100 is Class C, $100-$750 is Class B, $750-$2,500 is Class A, and so on up the felony grades.
Scenario 2: Employee theft from cash drawer
A defendant who is a cashier at a Frisco retail store and removes cash from the drawer over multiple shifts, totaling several thousand dollars. Under § 31.03, this conduct could constitute Theft; under § 31.09, multiple thefts can be aggregated.
Key consideration: Aggregation under § 31.09 lets the State combine smaller thefts pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct, raising the classification.
Scenario 3: Theft of a vehicle
A defendant who takes a vehicle without the owner's effective consent. Under § 31.03, this conduct could constitute Theft, classified by the value of the vehicle.
Key consideration: Most vehicle thefts are state-jail felonies or 3rd-degree felonies because the value typically exceeds $2,500; UUMV (Unauthorized Use of Motor Vehicle) under § 31.07 is a separate, lower-level offense.
Scenario 4: Theft from elderly individual
A defendant who knowingly takes property from a person age 65 or older. Under § 31.03 with the enhancement in § 31.03(f)(3), this conduct could constitute a Theft enhanced one classification level.
Key consideration: Knowledge of the victim's age is generally required for the enhancement to apply.
Scenario 5: Receiving stolen property
A defendant who buys property knowing it is stolen. Under § 31.03(b)(2), this conduct could constitute Theft on a 'receiving stolen property' theory.
Key consideration: The State must prove the defendant knew the property was stolen — a circumstantial inference often arising from the price paid, the seller, or the surrounding facts.
These are hypothetical educational scenarios. They do not reflect actual cases handled by L and L Law Group, PLLC, and outcomes vary based on facts, evidence, and legal representation. For a confidential, fact-specific discussion of a real case, call (972) 370-5060 or email info@landllawgroup.com.
Notable Case Law
Texas appellate courts have repeatedly construed Penal Code § 31.03. The decisions below are reference points the defense uses when framing motions, jury arguments, and trial strategy.
-
Jefferson v. State, 189 S.W.3d 305, Tex. Crim. App. 2006
Addressed the unit of prosecution for theft and the rules for aggregation of multiple thefts under Penal Code § 31.09.
-
Christensen v. State, 240 S.W.3d 25, Tex. App.—Houston [1st] 2007
Discussed the 'effective consent' element under § 31.03(b) and the State's burden when an alleged owner's consent is contested.
Case law evolves; verify current status before relying on any holding. Citations are accurate as of 2026-05-19. For a case-specific analysis of how recent decisions affect a particular charge, call L and L Law Group at (972) 370-5060 or email info@landllawgroup.com.
Compendiums, calculators & related sections
Interactive calculator
Practice area
Related penal-code sections
Last reviewed: 2026-05-13 by Njeri London and Reggie London, co-founding partners, L and L Law Group, PLLC. This content is reviewed for accuracy at least every 12 months and when statutory or case-law changes occur.
Attorney Advertising Disclosure. This content is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading this content or contacting L and L Law Group, PLLC through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
About the Authors
Njeri London
Co-Founding Partner
Texas Bar No. 24043266. Admitted: TXND, TXED, 5th Circuit. Thurgood Marshall School of Law. Focus: Fourth Amendment motion practice, drug-crime defense, federal cases.
Verify on Texas Bar
Reggie London
Co-Founding Partner
Texas Bar No. 24043514. Former Dallas County Assistant District Attorney. Extensive felony trial experience including DWI dockets.
Verify on Texas Bar