APPELLANT

APPELLEE

PER CURIAM

The county court at law found appellant guilty of theft of property having a value of $20 or more but less than $200. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (West 1989 & Supp. 1993). The court assessed punishment at incarceration for thirty days.

Appellant brings forward five points of error, one of which is that the State failed to prove ownership of the property as alleged. The State confesses error.

The information alleges that appellant stole merchandise from Sam Anderson. The evidence shows that the property was stolen from a department store in Bastrop. Anderson's connection to the store, if any, is unexplained. Because the State failed to prove ownership as alleged, the conviction cannot stand. See Freeman v. State, 707 S.W.2d 597, 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Point of error two is sustained. We need not address the remaining points of error.

The judgment of conviction is reversed and reformed to reflect an acquittal.

[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Jones]

Reversed and Reformed

Filed: March 31, 1993

[Do Not Publish]