context: Because the allowable unit of prosecution is the property taken, the State would not be able to prosecute Byrd again for the theft of the same items, alleging Wal-Mart as the owner. Any subsequent charge involving the same property would constitute the same offense.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 46 S.W.3d 258, 258
citation_a.parenthetical: "Appellant is in no danger of being prosecuted again for theft of the same cart proved at trial."
citation_a.sentence: See Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d at 337; Gollihar, 46 S.W.3d at 258 (“Appellant is in no danger of being prosecuted again for theft of the same cart proved at trial.”); see also U.S. v. Apodaca, 843 F.2d 421, 430 n. 3 (10th Cir.) (entire record may be reviewed to determine whether double jeopardy prevents subsequent prosecution), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 932, 109 S.Ct. 325, 102 L.Ed.2d 342 (1988).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: entire record may be reviewed to determine whether double jeopardy prevents subsequent prosecution
citation_b.sentence: See Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d at 337; Gollihar, 46 S.W.3d at 258 (“Appellant is in no danger of being prosecuted again for theft of the same cart proved at trial.”); see also U.S. v. Apodaca, 843 F.2d 421, 430 n. 3 (10th Cir.) (entire record may be reviewed to determine whether double jeopardy prevents subsequent prosecution), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 932, 109 S.Ct. 325, 102 L.Ed.2d 342 (1988).