In Cooper v. State, 67 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), the defendant was convicted of robbery based on evidence he struck his uncle repeatedly and then drove off in the uncle's truck. Id. at 222. The defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish a nexus between the assault and the theft. Id. at 222-23. The court of appeals reversed the robbery conviction, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish a nexus between the assault and the theft given the lack of evidence regarding financial difficulty or prior coveting of the truck. Cooper, 29 S.W.3d 901, 904 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2000), rev'd, 67 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed, holding that a natural inference of the nexus arises when an assault is followed immediately by a theft. Cooper, 67 S.W.3d at 224. Cooper explains that the required nexus between murder and robbery in a finding of capital murder is the same as the required nexus between assault and theft in a finding of robbery. Id. at 223.