ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED NO. 06-15-00037-CR

__________________________________________________________________ In the Sixth Court of Appeals Texarkana, Texas

_________________________________________________________________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V. ERICA LYNN FULLER, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 6 Judicial District Court th Lamar County, Texas; Trial Court Cause No. 25545;

Honorable Eric Clifford, Judge

__________________________________________________________________



## BRIEF OF APPELLEE

__________________________________________________________________ THE MOORE LAW FIRM, L.L.P. James R. Rodgers State License #17136300 Judy Hodgkiss State License # 17136525 100 N. Main Street Paris, Texas 75460 Telephone 903/784-4393 Facsimile 903/783-0042 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE, ERICA LYNN FULLER ACCEPTED 06-15-00037-cr SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/5/2015 1:38:01 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK-i
IDEN TITY OF PA RTIE S A ND CO UN SEL Pursua nt to T ex . R. App. P
. 38. 1( a) , the ide nti ty of part ie s, a lon g w iththe na m es a nd a ddr es se s of

a ll co unse l, is the f

oll ow ing : T he S ta te of

T ex as A ppe lla nt Lam ar C ount y

& D istrict Attorney ’ s Of fice Lam ar C ount y

Courthous e 119 North Main Street Pari s, T ex as 754 60 Jil l D rake a nd L auri e Po llard A tto rne ys for Th e Sta te of Te

xa s Lam ar C ount y

& D istrict Attorney ’ s Of fice Lam ar C ount y

Courthous e 119 North Main Street Pari s, T ex as 754 60 G ar y D
. Y oung County and District A ttorn ey C o u n t y an dDi s t r i c tAt t o rn e y Lam ar C ount y

Courthous e 119 North Main Street Pari s, T ex as 754 60 Je ffre y W . She ll , A tto rne

y P ro T em A tto rne y for the Sta te of Te

xa s Attorney & Counselor at L aw 2085 Be rk da le L an e Ro ckw al l, T ex as 750 87 Er ica L ynn Fuller Appellee % T he Moore L awFirm , L .L .P
. 100 North Main Street Pari s, T ex as 754 60 Ja m es R. Ro dge rs Attorneys for Appellee Judy H odgk iss The M oore Law F irm , L .L .P
. 100 North Main Street Pari s, T ex as 754 60-i iTAB LE OF CO NTE NTS P a g e IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... i T A BL E O F CO N T E N T S
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii IN D E X O F A U T H O RI T IE S
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii ST A T E MEN T RE G A RD IN G O RA L A RG U MEN T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv REPLY TO ISSUES PRESENTED ....
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . v INTRODUCTION ......
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS .....
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 2 SU MM A RYO F T H E A RG U MEN T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A RG U MEN T A

N D A U T H O RI T IE S
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 PR A Y E R .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 CE RT IF IC A T E O F CO MP L IA N CE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 CE RT IF IC A T E O F SE RV IC E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-i iiIND EX OF AU THORITIES C a s es P a g e A de lm an v . Sta te , 828 S
. W
. 2d 4 18 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 199 2)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 29 Ada mes v. St at e, 353 S. W
. 3d 8 54 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 201 1)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Bailey v . State, 855 S
. W
. 2d 1 93 ( T ex . App. - D al la s 19 94)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Ch ris te nse n v . Sta te , 230 S
. W
. 3d 7 5 ( T ex . App. - H oust on [ 1 D ist
. ] 200 7)
. 26 st Cu ev a v . Sta te , 339 S
. W
. 2d 8 39 ( T ex . App. - Co rp us C hr ist i 20 11)
. . . . . . . . . . . . 27 F re em an v . Sta te , 707 S
. w . 2d 5 97 ( T ex . Ci v. App. 198 6)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 G old v . Sta te , 736 S
. W
. 2d 8 65 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 198 7)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Huff v. State, 897 S
. W
. 2d 8 29 ( T ex . App. - D al la s 19 95)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 20, 24, 25 Minter v. State, 26 T ex . App. 217 , 9 S
. W
. 561
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Ne wm an v . Sta te , 115 S
. W
. 3d 1 18 ( 2003 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 R ose nbus h v

. Sta te , 136 T ex . Cr im
. . 50 ( 1938 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Ste wa rt v
. Sta te , 44 S
. W
. 3d 5 82 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 200 1)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Tes or o Ref

in in g & Market in g C

o., LLC v. Na ti on al

Uni on Fir e......... ....... .. 23 Ins. Co. of P ittsbu rgh, Pe nnsylvan ia, - F.Supp . 3d - 20 15 W L 15 29 43
. W irt z v . Sta te , 361 S
. W
. 3d 6 94 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 201 2)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 STA TUT ES Te x. Cr
. Co de A nn §

31. 03( a)
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 19 Te x. P en al C

ode § 31

. 01
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 19, 26-ivSTATE MENT REG ARDING ORAL ARGUMENT T he Appe lle e, E ri ca

L ynn F ull er

r eq ue sts or al a rg um en t. O ra l arg um en t w oul d
as si st in ap pl y in g t he law t o t he fact s i n t hi s ca se .-vREP LY TO ISS UE PRESEN TED IS SUE P RESENT ED IN REPLY TO SOLE I SSUE : TH E TRIA L C OU R T D ID NOT AB US E ITS D ISCRETION IN GRA NTIN G FULL ER’ S M OTION FO R NEW T RIAL AS T HE EVI DENCE WAS L EGAL LY INS UFFICIE NT.-1- NO. 06 -1 5- 00 03 7- CR

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ In t he S ixt h C ou rtof

A pp ea ls Te xar k an a, Te xas

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ THE S TAT E OF TEX AS , A ppellant

V. ERIC A L YN N F ULL ER, Ap pellee

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ On A ppeal fr om the 6 Judicial Distr ict C ourt th La m ar C ou nt y, Te xas; Tr ial C ou rtC au se N o. 255 45;

Honorable Eric Cliff

ord, Judge

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 

## BRI EF OF A PPELLEE

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ TO THE HON ORA BLE S IXTH COU RT OF AP PE ALS AT TEXARKANA: CO ME S N O W , E ri ca

L ynn F ull er , by

a nd thr oughhe r at tor

ne y of r ec or d, Jam es R. Rodgers, and files this Brief of Appellee under Rule 38.2 of the T exas Rules of App el la te Pro ced ur e.-2- STA TEM ENT OF FA CTS The a lleged theft occurre d on Decem ber 31, 2010. The aud it investig ation that is refe ren ced th ro ug ho ut th is cas e o ccu rred in Jan ua ry , 20 11
. Throughout the tes t i m ony the nursing hom e is ref erre d to alternatively

as Brentw ood, Parkview , or Diversicare. O riginally the nursing hom e w as k n o wn as Parkvie w . I t l at er

be cam e know n as Br en tw ood T er ra ce N ur sin g H om e an d R eh ab
. D ive rs ic ar e is the c or

por at iontha t bo ught

the f ac ili ty . ( RR , V ol. 4, p. 45; V ol. 5, p. 7)
. A t the ti m es r el ev an t t o this inc ide nt, Ru th B ro w n ( Br ow n) w as the a dm ini str at or of Br en tw ood. Me lis saN ei sle r (N ei sle r) w as the busi ne ss of fi ce m an ag er . ( RR , V ol. 4, p. 41). E rica F uller’ s (Fuller) j ob w as to oversee the account that Brentwood set up w hic h is re fe rr ed to as the “ tr ust fund”
. Fu lle r’ s dut ie s al so in cl ud ed sen din g invo ices into corporate that are p ro perly coded for pay

m ent. F uller had no check
wr iting authority

on the account refer

red to through out th e trial as “ operations”. (RR, V ol. 5, pp. 15- 16)
. O the r than m ak ing de posi ts, F ull er ha d no th in g to do w iththe ope ratio ns s ide or ope ratio ns ac co unt . (R R, V ol. 5, pp. 15- 16)
. I n f ac t, one pe rs on de al t w iththe r es ide nts ’ a cc ount ( T ru st - F ull er) and on e de al t w iththe ope ratio ns
acco un t (Ne is le r). (RR, Vo l. 4 , p. 1 40 -1 41 ). Angie Sty les (A ngie W hipk ey ) w as the rece ption ist. The receptionist hand led
m oney th at cam e int o th e fa ci lity tha t w as e ith er

put int o th e tr

ust f und or the-3-

ope ratio ns f

und. I t w as the r ec ep tio nis t w ho had the duty of giv ing the appr opr ia te
rece ip t fo r th e tr an sa ct io n. (RR , Vol . 4, p p. 5 2, 5 3, 1 14 , 12 5)
. T he sy ste m

tha t w as uti liz ed

a t B re ntw ood ha d alot

of m one y goi ng thr ough it on a da ily ba sis
. ( RR , V ol. 4, p. 177 ). O n ada ily ba si s, m one y

w as c om ing in, goin g o ut, w ith m oney

m ovin g from

one account to anoth er. (RR , V ol. 4, p. 178). Fo r ins tanc e, som e of

the r es ide nts ’ r oom

a nd b oa rd

w as pa id fr om the tr

ust f und an d
som e of the re sidents ’ room and board was paid fr om the operations account. (RR , V ol. 4, p. 178 ). A s to som e of the ind ivi dua ls, r oom

a nd b oa rd

w oul d be pa id f

ro m
o n e a c c o u n ta n do n o t h e r o c c a s i o n s , t h e r o o m a n db o a r d w o u l db e p a i df r o m a dif fe re nt a cc ount . ( RR , V ol. 4, p. 179 ). T he ac co unt s be ing r ef er en ce d are ge ne ra lly
re fe rr ed to as the tr

ust a cc ount a nd the ope ratio ns ac co unt . O ft en , Br en tw ood w oul d
w ri te it se lf

ac he ck f ro m one a cc ount

a nd d ep osi t i t i nto an oth er a cc ount to re im bur se it se lf f orroo m an d b oa rdon a res id en t. (RR , Vol . 4, p . 17 9) . In t he se s i t u a t io ns , a ch ec k w oul d be w ri tten on th e tr ust a cc ount a nd d ep osi te d in to the ope ratio ns
ac co unt . I t wa s not an unusu al sit ua tio n for a ch ec k to m ove f ro m the tr ust a cc ount to the operations account so as to pay the room

and board of a re s i d en t . It wa s adm itted that there can be discrepancies in this sy stem . (RR, Vol. 4 , p p . 179 -180). In fact, DA DS conducted an audit and f ound som e deficie ncies. H owever , these w ere
com m on and the ty

pe of deficiencies found had happened befor e and have happened-4-

si nc e th is si tu at io n. (R R, Vol . 4, p . 18 0)
. It w as le ar ne d inthe tr ia l tha t the r ec ep tio nis t S ty le s ( Whip ke y ) ha d m ad e m an y
er ro rs in he r re ce ipt ing
. In fa ct , it w as ac know le dge d tha t al m ost al l of the r ec ei pts pr ep ar ed dur ing thi s ti m e pe ri od by Whip ke y w er e inc or

re ct . ( RR , V ol. 4, pp. 165
- 16 6)
. Br ow n a dm itt ed

th at W hip ke y

in re fe re nc e to the r ec ei pts ha d do ne “ a lot
w ro ng”
. O ne of

the pr obl em s w ith Whip ke y w as tha t she w as not al w ay s c he ck ing
w he the r it w as c as h be ing br oug ht in or c he ck s be ing br ough t i n to w hic h ar ec ei pt
w as giv en . B ro w n a cknow le dge d that thi s w as a“ big de al ” in n ot g et tin g it str ai ght
w he the r ca sh or ch ec k w as br ough t int o the fa ci lity . (RR, V ol. 4, p. 187 ). I n f ac t, it
w a s s h o w n t h a tWh i p k e y r e p e a t e d t h i s e rr o r mu l t i p l e t i me s e v e n i n r e g a r dt o t h e s a me resident. ( RR, Vol. 4, pp. 188 -1 8 9 ). Brow n acknowledged that the facility never
re tr ie ve d th e ch ec ks o r fo llo w ed up w iththe r es ide nts or the ir fam ili es to de te rm ine if paym ents wer e m ade by cash or chec k as part of its inve s t i gation in this m atter. (RR, Vol. 4, p. 190). T he fac ility based its a

udit upon Whipk ey ’ s word that she had tur ne d e ve ry thi ng o ve r pr ope rl y . ( RR , V ol. 4, p. 193)
. Br ow n ack now le dge d th at

the audit was based upon W hipk ey even thoug h alm ost every rec eipt don e by

Whipk ey
was in co rrec t. (RR , Vol . 4, p . 19 3)
. Whip ke y te sti fi ed tha t the day s w er e of te n ve ry bus y w iththi rty

or m or e pe opl e-5-

m ak ing c as h paym en ts. S he de sc ri be d the sit ua tio n as “ he ct ic ”. ( RR , V ol. 4, pp. 236
- 237)
. Sh e al so des cr ibe d that she fe lt tha t the re w er e “ lot s of distra ct ion s”
. (RR, V ol. 4, p . 25 3)
. Whip ke y de sc ri be d th e sy ste m

statin g that som et im es the re w er e dis tr ibu tio ns out of the tr ust f und in whic h m one y

w oul d be goi ng o ut but th e re ce ipt s th at she prepared som etim es showed m oney com ing in instead. Whipk ey acknowledged that
so m et im es sh e g ot th e p ro ces s re ve rs ed . (RR, Vol . 4, p p. 2 59 -2 60 ). The sy stem

utili ze d b y B rent wood could best be described as follows: w hen
m one y w oul d c om e in, it

w oul d have to be c la ssi fi ed a s e ith er going int o th e tr ust fund o r to the ope ratio ns s ide
. ( RR , V ol. 4, pp. 178 -1 80)
. S oc ia l S ec ur ity c he ck s
w o u l dc o me t o t h e f

a c i l i t y. S o me o f

t h e c h e c k s w e n ti n t o t h e t r u s tf u n da n ds o me
w en t i nto the ope ratio ns a cc ount . ( RR , V ol. 4, p. 178 ). I f funds w er e ow ed to the fa ci lit y , the n a ct

ua l da tae ntr

y w as m ad e int o th e ac co unt s r ec ei vable tr ust f und sy ste m . ( RR , V ol. 5, p. 20)
. T hen, wha te ve r w as due the f ac ili ty w as pa id t o th e fa ci lity . T his m igh t re qui re a ch ec k fr om the tr ust fund be ing pa id i nto the ope ratio ns fund. (RR, V ol. 5, p. 21)
. In tha t sit ua tio n, the fa ci lity w oul d de posi t m one y int o th e ope ra tio ns ac c o u n tt o p a y v a r i o u s b i l l s o f

t h e r e s i d e n t s . ( R R , V o l
. 4 , p . 1 7 9 )
. T he ch ec k w oul d be w ri tte n fr om the tr ust fund to be put into the ope ra tio ns a cc ount , a nd at tha t tim e, the ch ec k w oul d be sc an ne d in to the ope ra tio ns a cc ount . ( RR , V ol. 5, p.-6-

21). F uller would wr ite the check fr om the trust fu n d t o the operations fund
. (RR, V ol. 5, p. 25)
. Fu lle r did not ha ve the au tho ri ty to w ri te ch ec ks fr om the ope ratio ns fund, and the re fo re , onc e m one y w en t i nto the ope ra tio ns fun d, she ha d no c ontro l or
acce ss to th os e fu nd s. (RR , Vol . 5, p p. 1 4- 16 ). The tr ust fund would have m u l t i p l e transactions that would take place. Residents could withdrawm inor am ount s for personal needs. (RR, Vol. 4, p. 56). O r, in s om e sit

ua tio ns, the f

ac ili ty w oul d w ri te it se lf

ar athe r larg e ch ec k fr om the tr ust fund t o r ei m

bur se it se lf fo r the re sid en ts w hose r oom a nd b oa rd

w er e pa id f

or thr ough the trust fund. How ever, to c om plicate the situatio n, som e re sidents ’ room and board
w as pa id f

ro m the ope ratio ns f

und, de pe ndi ng upon the na tur e of the f unds
. ( V ol. 4, pp . 17 8- 18 0)
. All of the cash that cam e in to the facility wa s rece ipted by Whipk ey . Whipk ey would “ answer

the phon e, greet f

am ilies, re ceipt trust and AR. ” (RR, Vol. 4, p. 234). Whip ke y too k c ar e of

thr ee r ec ei pt b ooks
. (RR, V ol. 4, pp. 235, 259)
. Whip ke y did all of the rec eipting of all of the chec ks that would com e to the front a s we l l
. (RR, V ol. 4, p. 259 ). T he thr ee r ec ei pt b ooks a ll loo ke d id en tic al
. ( RR , V ol. 4, pp. 115 , 26 6)
. A s a cknow le dge d by

the S ta te in its br ie f, W hi pke y “ got the r ec ei pts r ea lly
m ixe d up in the boo ks”
. ( RR , V ol. 4, p. 251 ). A cc or din g to F ull er ’ s j ob d es cr ipt ion ,-7-

she w as in ac co unt s pay ab le
. ( RR , V ol. 4, p. 122 ). H ow ev er , the a cc ount s pay ab le portio n of

he r j ob w as li m ite d to se ndi ng the inv oic es int o c or por at e fo r pa ym en t. Fuller did not hav e acc ess to the operations side to m ake the paym ents. N eisler de sc rib edit as ha vi ng two acco un ts , op erat io ns an d t ru st . (RR, Vol . 4, p . 43 ). Bro wn described it that Fuller did entries on the trust account s i d e an d Glenda Neisler (Melissa N eisler’ s daught er) did entries on th e operations side. Brow n testi fi ed , as fo llo w s:

“ A nd y ou h ad one pe rs on tha t j ust de al t wi th the re sid en ts’ ac co unt s, the re sid en ts’ tr

ust f und an d the ir

pe rs ona l a cc ount s, a nd the n y ou h ad the ot he r pe rs on th atact ua ll y de al t wi th th e o pe rat io ns . Q
. O k a y. A
. - ac co unt . (RR, Vo l. 4 , pp . 14 0- 14 1)
. Fu lle r did m ak e de posi ts fo r the tr

ust an d th e ope ra tio ns s ide
. ( RR , V ol. 4, p. 46)
. F ull er

handl ed rece iv ab les, a cc ount s pay ab le a nd p ay ro ll. H ow ev er , the
ac co unt s pay ab le w as lim ite d to ap pr ovi ng invoi ce s and se ndi ng the m int o c or por at e fo r pa ym en t. (RR, Vo l. 4 , p. 1 24 ). Fu lle r h a d w o rk e d a t t h e f a c i l i t y f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s p r i o r t o t h e i n c i d e n t t he subject of this allegation
. In August of 2010 , B rown be ca m e the adm inistrator at Bren two od . B ro w n gave F ull er poo r j ob p er fo rm an ce appr ai sa ls. ( RR , V ol. 4, p.-8-

17 3)
. T he j ob p er fo rm an ce appr ai sa ls by Br ow n w er e m ar ke dly dif fe re nt tha n th ose tha t F u l l e r h a d r e c e i v e d u n d e r t h e p r e v i o u s a d m i n i s t r a t o r f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s . T he pr ev i o u s a d m i n i s t r a t o r , N o rm aV i n t e r s , h a dp r a i s e dF u l l e r ’ s j o b p e r f o rm a n c e a nd described her as an excellent em ploy ee. In fa ct, her perf o rman ce appraisals we re
ex em plary . ( RR , V ol. 4, pp. 168 -1 71; D ef en da nt’ s e xhi bit s 4, 5 and 6 ). T he pr ev iou s adm ini str at or

in de sc ri bin g F ull er ’ s e xc el le nt p er fo rm an ce not ed : “ Eve n though E ri ca ’ s ne w to bookke ep ing , str ong de sir e, gr ea t per son to wo rk ar ound , sti ll le ar nin g bu t al way s wi ll in g t o h el p” . (RR, Vol . 4, p . 17 2)
. Appare ntl y , in Ja nuary

of 201 1 B ro w n c ont ac te d c or por at e tha t the pe tty

c as h box d id not rec oncile. ( RR, Vol. 4, p. 149). Full er and Whipk ey we re suspended pe ndi ng the inv es tig at ion
. ( RR , V ol. 4, pp. 150- 151)
. T he y w er e sus pe nde d be ca

use of acc ess to the petty

cash b ox. (RR, V ol. 4, p. 152). Brow n contacted Cary on Miller (M i l l er ) w h o wa s d es cr i b ed as “ re g i o n al fi n an ci al s p ec i al i s t ” f ro m Br en t wo o d ’s
co rp or at e of

fi ce . ( RR , V ol. 4, pp. 149 -1 53)
. Mi lle r co nduc te d th e inv es tig at iona nd Br ow n de fe rr ed

to Mille r in a ll re spe ct s inr eg ar d to the a cc ount ing a nd/ or in ve st ig at io n. Brow n acknowledged that she could not pl a c e a single dollar having b een taken by Erica Fu ll er b utde ferr edto Mi ll er i n t ha t re ga rd . (RR, Vol . 4, p . 17 6)
.-9-

Miller w as not an accountant, certified publi c acc ount ant, or audito r. Miller had no accountin g backgrou n d except for sever al classes. (RR , vol. 5, pp. 7, 45). Mi lle r ac know le dge d th at E ri ca F ull er ha d nothi ng to do w iththe a cc ount s r ec ei vable or the operations side other than send ing in voices in for paym ent. ( RR, Vol. 5, p. 16). F ull er w oul d have m ad e the de posi ts i nto the a cc ount . (RR, Vol . 5 , p. 16)
. T he ope ratio ns a cc ount

w as in an ou t of

the state bank and E ri ca F ull er w oul d have nothin g to do w iththe c om put er part of tha t othe r than m ak ing de posi ts. ( RR , V ol. 5, p. 16). Mi lle r te sti fi ed

th at if a re sid en t’ s f

am ily put $50 0. 00 i nto his /he r tr

ust f und tha t w as to be use d f

or the r es ide nt’ s r oom

a nd b oa rd
. T ha t m one y w oul d be de posi te d int o the tr

ust f und an d th enac he ck

w oul d be w ri tte n to Br en tw ood fr om the trust fund th at w ould then be put in to the operations fun d o f Brentwood. (RR, Vo l . 5 , p p . 1 9 -2 0 ). Th er ef o re , t h er e w o u l d b e man y o cc as i o n s wh er e a re s i d en t ’s
room and board would be paid for out of the trust fund account. T he boo k keeper, F u l l e r , wo u l dwr i t e t h e c h e c kf r o m th e t r u s t f u n dt o t h e o p e r a t i o n s f

u n d
. Ac tu a l l y, Fuller w ould wr ite the check but som eone else w ould be required to sign it
. (RR, Vol . 5, p . 25 ). Glen da Neis le r was on th e op erat io ns si de
. (RR, Vo l. 5 , p. 2 6) . On the disbu rsem ent sheet, each r esident’ s nam e and the am ount that wa s to be applied to the ope ratio ns s ide w oul d be not ed
. T his w oul d be r ef er re d to a s adis bur se m en t-10-

sheet. ( RR, Vol. 5, p. 26). T heref ore, there w as not a specific sheet w ritten for a spe ci fi c re sid en t bu t r athe r an ac cu m ula tio n of m an y re sid en ts and one ch ec k be ing
w ri tte n. T he dis bur se m en t she et w oul d te ll the ope ra tio ns sid e ea chind ivi dua l and the a m ount

appl ie d to tha t i ndi vid

ua l’ s r oom

a nd b oa rd

a cc ount . T he n th er e w oul d be atr ust f und en tr y f or e ach r es ide nt tha t w oul d sh owa ny de posi t or

w ith dr aw al
. (RR, V ol. 5, pp. 26- 27)
. T he re fo re , the re w oul d be m one y co m ing in an d out of the trust f u n d
. S o m e o f i t w o u l d b e e a rm a rk e d f o r r o o m a n d b o a r d t o b e pa id t o th e ope ratio ns side
. A t the sa m e tim e, m one y w oul d be c om ing in on the ope ra tio ns s ide fo r va ri ous re sid en ts tha t w oul d be used to pay ro om an d boar d but it w oul d be onl y fr om the ope ratio ns s ide
. I f it cam e in fro m th e tru st f und sid e, ac he ck

w oul d be
w ri tte n and s ign ed

by som eo ne oth er than F ull er , a nd the re fo re , the m one y w oul d be pu t i nt o t he op erat io ns si de . (RR, Vol . 5, p p. 2 5- 28 ). Miller in conductin g the audit, l ooked at t he account of Thom as Hughes. Mr. H ughe s’ bil l f

or r oom a nd b oa rd

a ve ra ge d $3 , 500. 00 p er

m onth. ( RR , V ol. 5, pp. 34- 35). H is bill was paid by

direct deposit from Medicaid into the op erations side. (RR, Vol. 5, p. 35). G lenda Neisler would have handled the com puter entries of T hom as Hughes’ Medicaid paym ents on th e operations side. (RR, Vol. 5, p. 36). H owever , Mr
. H ughe s r ec ei ve d a soc ia l se curi ty dis ab ili ty pa ym en t tha t w as de posi te d in to the tr ust f und. Appare ntl y the re w as apaym en t ( dis bur se m en t sh ee t) m ad e fr om the tr ust-11-

fund to th e operations side and it in cluded $8, 000.00 being paid on behalf of T hom as H ughe s. ( RR , V ol. 5, pp. 72- 73)
. I n sh or t, $8, 000. 00 w as pa id t o th e ope ra tio ns s ide
as r oom a nd b oa rd

f ro m Mr H ughe s an d he did not ow e $8, 000. 00 to the fa ci lity . T he faci li ty hadth e m on ey

in th e o pe rat io ns acco un t. (RR , Vol . 5, p . 12 5)
. Mi lle r ac know le dge d th at it w as Br en tw ood tha t had the e xc es s paym en t f ro m the tr ust fund to the ope ratio ns fun d. T he se funds w er e in the ope ra tio ns a cc ount of Br en tw ood, a n a cc ount

F ull er c ou ld m ak e de posi ts i nto but not w ith dr awor

w ri te ch ec ks. ( V ol. 4, pp. 140- 141; RR , V ol. 5, pp. 15- 16, 125; RR ). G le ndaN ei sle r w oul d have entered this transaction on th e operations side. (RR, Vol. 4, p. 103). Miller
ac know le dge d th at

the re c anbe a cc ount ing e rr or s in thi s sy ste m . ( RR , V ol. 5, pp. 106 -1 07 ). Mi lle r ac know le dge d th at the re w as no law en fo rc em en t f or en sic a cc ount ing of this situ ation perform ed. Additionally , D iversicare did no t bring in a certified publ ic a cc ount an t no r au dit or to pe rf orm thi s audi t. (RR , V ol. 5, pp. 124 -1 29)
. T he bot tom li ne is tha t B re ntw ood got som e m one y

out of the tr ust f und an d it

w as put int o B re ntw ood’ s op er at ion s a cco un t. Br en tw ood ha d th e tr ust a cc ount tha t i t adm ini ste re d onbe ha lf

of the re sid en ts and it ha d the ope ra tio ns a cc ount . T he f ac ili ty had all of the m oney

and Er ica Fuller did no t rece ive any
. (RR, Vol. 5, p. 125). Furthe r, by de posi tin g the funds int o the ope ra tio ns ac co unt , Fu lle r co uld not a cc es s-12-

or do anything with the funds. (RR, Vol. 5, pp. 15-16). Miller ac knowledged that ab sol ute ly

no m one y w en t int o E ri ca Fu lle r’ s poss es sio n as al l of it w as de posi te d in to Br en tw ood’ s a cc ount . ( RR , V ol. 5, p. 125)
. Furthe r, thi s is a n a cc ount ( ope ratio ns si de ) th atFu ll er d id no t h av e acc es s t o a nd di d n ot writ e c h e c k s o n t ha t ac co un t. (RR, Vo l. 5 , pp . 15 -1 6)
. Miller acknowledged th at she did not find a single check nor any cash that
en de d up in E ri ca

F ull er ’ s po sse ssi on. (RR, V ol. 5, p. 127 ). B re ntw ood, w he n it discovered that the check of $8,000.00 w as m oved from the trust fund and d eposited onto Mr. Hughes’ room and board on the operations side sim ply corre cted this byan
ac co unt ing c or

re ct ionand r ed ep osi te d th e funds ba ck on the tr ust f und sid e. I n sh ort, the m one y

w en t f ro m the tr ust f und to the ope ra tio ns a cc ount a nd f ro m the ope ratio ns
acco un t b ackto th e trus t fu nd acco un t. (RR , Vol . 5, p p. 1 25 , 12 8- 12 9)
. Miller, upon whom

the entire audit investig ation depend s, adm itted that her
au dit w as ba se d up on h er

be lie f an d a ssu m

pti on tha t Whip ke y ’ s re ce ipt s we re c or re ct . Fo r ins tanc e, Mi lle r as sum ed tha t pa tie nt L aw le r al w ay s pa id c ash eventho ugh Whitke y ’ s r ec ei pts we re w ri tte n su chtha t i t i ndi ca te d bo th c as h and c he ck
. N ev er the le ss, Mi lle r be lie ve d th at pa tie nt L aw le r’ s ac co unt w as r ea lly

pa id w ithc as h because, according to Miller , the Lawler account wa s alway s paid with cash. When
co nf ro nte d w ithD ef

en da nts ’ s E xhi bit

10, w hic h is ac he ck

f or pa tie nt L aw le r in the-13-

ex ac t a m ount

of the r ec ei pt, Mi lle r te sti fi ed a s f oll ow s: Q. So would y ou m ean to tell the j ury som ething wrong when y ou said th ey al w ay s pa id i n c as h w he n w e’ ve got r igh t he re ac he ck ? A
. N o, sir
. I t — Q
. Y ou ’ r e w r on g, a r e n’ ty ou ? A
. Y es . (RR. Vol. 5, p. 47). Even further w hen questio ned about h er lac k of experience in condu cting an
au dit , Mi lle r te sti fi ed

a s f oll ow s: Q
. Y ou don’ th a v e t h e e x p e r i e n c e t o m a k e a n au d i tl i k e t h i s , d o y o u, be ca use y ou m iss ed

the m ost ba sic thi ng. Y ou b as ed

y our w hol e au dit tha t tha t i s c as h, c as h, a nd r igh t the re in y our ow n r ec or ds i s ac he ck
. A. Yes , si r. Q
. Y ou m iss ed

it , didn’ t y ou? Y ou j ust

f la t m iss ed

it , didn’ t y ou? A. Tha t i s a c he ckfro m May of 20 10
. (RR, Vo l. 5 , pp . 47 - 48 ). Whe n M ill er

w as que sti one d a

bout the e nd r es ult

of the que sti one d tr an sa ct ion , the f oll ow ing te sti m ony

w as pr ovi de d: Q
. So I ha ve be ensay ing if f or aday an d a ha lf

, the re ’ s no m one y

goi ng into he r poc ke t. I t w en t f ro m one a cc ount

to the oth er

a cc ount a nd B r e ntw oo d i s t he o ne t ha th a s t he m on e y , r i gh t ?-14-

A. It wa s d ep os it edin to Bren two od ’s op erat in g a cco un t. (RR, Vo l. 5 , p. 1 25 ). Furthe r, Mi lle r’ s te sti m ony w as a s f oll ow s: Q
. D id y ou fi nd a sin gle c he ck tha t E ri ca

F ull er e ve r too k and - or

m ay be m ade up a stam

p: “ for deposit on ly ” to Er ica Fuller? A. No, s ir. Q
. D id y ou f

ind a nythi ng l ike tha t? A
. N o. Q
. Bu t y ou are the audi tor , r igh t? A
. Y es . Q
. Y o uc a n ’t f

i n do n e p e n n y t h a tw e n ti n t o h e r a c c o u n t , c a n yo uo r

n a me or an yt hi ng e lse
. R i gh t ? A. I ne ve r rev ie wedhe r acc ou nt s, n o. (RR, Vo l. 5 , p. 1 27 ). Fu lle r w as f

ir ed by D ive rs ic ar e. ( RR , Vol. 5, p. 107 ). F ull er the n f ile d f or
unem ploy m ent benefits and a contested h ea ri n g was held before the Te xas Em ploy m ent Com

m issio n who determ ined that “ no m iscondu ct estab lished”. (RR, V ol . 4 , p p. 174 -1 83)
. T he re af te r, F ull er

f ile d asui t tha t w as la te r tr an sf er re d to federa l court. ( RR, Vol. 4, pp . 175-176, 217, 224, 229). D iversicare wa s represented by Ma tt H oll ey , w ho is an e m plo ym en t and l ab or

spe ci al ist

w ithH ay ne s and B oone-15-

law firm
. (RR, Vol. 4, pp. 211-21 1, 213). Fuller subje cted herself to full dis covery in the f ed er al c ourt c as e. ( RR , V o. 4, p. 212 ). D ive rs ic ar e did not f ile a ny
com pulso ry counter-claim

against Fuller. Diversicare settled with Full er for a total pa ym en t o f $1 6,0 00 .00 . (RR, Vol . 4, p . 21 9)
. T he S ta te a rg ue s th at

Br en tw ood did

not ha ve an y

pr obl em s w iththe ir

tr ust funds su bsequent to the firing of Fuller. How ever, the record shows that substantial
c h a n g e s we r e mad e t o t h e s ys t e m s ub s e qu e n tt o t h e s e e v e n t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y, Br en tw ood ch an ge d it s r ec ei pti ng s y ste m a ft er F ull er w as te rm ina te d. (RR, V ol. 4, p. 67)
. A ddi tio na lly , Br en tw ood ch an ge d the post ing sid e of the sy ste m . ( RR , V ol. 4, p, 94). Further, they sim ply do not do receipts the way they previouslydid. (RR, Vo l
. 4, p. 110). A dm inistrator Brown ac knowledged that th e sy stem had been ch an ge d “ qui te abit ”. (RR, V ol. 4, p. 165)
. Furthe r, the pr oc ed ur es w er e ini tia te d to take ca re of the problem s that Whipk ey had as rec eptioni st. ( RR, Vol. 4, p. 186). Nowunder the sy stem

that is used, when there is a re ceipt given, it can be deter m ined fro m who m an d b y who m an d t he m an ne r of

th e p aym en t. (RR , Vol . 4,p . 26 3)
.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUME NT T he e vid en ce w as le ga lly ins uf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t. T he relevan t s t an dard for j udgi ng the ins ufficiency of the evidence is w hether afte r-16-

viewing the evidence in the light m ost f avorable to the State, any rational trier of fact
co uld ha ve f

ound the e sse nti al e le m en ts o f the c ri m e be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. A de lm an v . Sta te , 828 S
. W
. 2d 4 18 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 199 2)
. I n othe r w or ds, the re m ust be evidence of each of t he essential elem ents of theft in the record to such a level that a jury cou ld ha ve fou nd th atpro of was e st ab li sh edbe y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. T he f oll ow ing co nc lus ive ly

e sta bli sh f ac ts tha t m ak e it cl ear tha t a s am at te r of law , the e le m en ts o f the ft sim ply a re no t es ta bli she d by

a ny standard , m

uc h le ss, be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt: 1. Fu ller was a bookke ep er f or Br en tw ood an d, a s su ch , r out ine ly m ad e de posi ts and d isb ur se m en ts f ro m the tr ust a cc ount int o th e ope ratio ns
ac co unt . ( RR , V ol. 4, pp. 179 -1 80; RR , V ol. 5, p. 25) ; 2. It was no t unusua l f

or r es ide nts to ha ve de posi ts i nto the tr ust a cc ount which w ere then paid in to the operations account of Bre ntwood. (RR, V ol. 4, pp. 179 -1 80; RR , V ol. 5, p. 21) ; 3. Fu lle r co uld m ake d ep osi ts i nto the ope ra tio ns s ide but c oul d no t pe rf orm a ny oth er ta sks w iththe ope ra tio ns a cc ount . ( RR , V ol. 5, pp. 15-16); 4. Fu lle r ap pa re ntl y m ad e a dis bur se m en t f ro m the f ac ili ty ’ s tr

ust a cc ount into th e operations account and this included funds of a resident nam ed-17- Thom as Hughes. (RR, Vol. 5, pp. 72-73); 5
. T he di s b u r s e m e n t w a s d e p o s i t e d i n t o t h e o p e r a t i o n s a c c o u n tof Brentw ood. (RR, Vol. 5, pp. 72-73, 125); 6. Fu lle r ha d no c ontro l or ac ces s to the f unds onc e de posi te d in to the ope ratio ns a cc ount . ( RR , V ol. 4, pp. 103 , 140 -1 41; V ol. 5, pp. 15-16, 125); 7. T he audi tor (M ill er ) fo r Br en tw ood adm itt ed the T hom as H ughe s’ f unds de sc ri be d a

bove w er e pla ce d into the ope ra tio ns ac co unt a nd w er e sti ll in the ope ratio ns a cc ount

w he n th is c ontro ve rs y

c am e ab out . (RR, V ol. 5, p. 125); 8. T he se f

unds w er e not an d co uld not be a cc es se d by F ull er . ( RR , V ol. 5, pp. 15-16, 125); 9. All of Thom as Hughes’ funds w ere still in the account and wer e re turned to the trust account. (RR , V ol. 5, pp. 125, 128-129 ); 10. The a

udito r could not find any m oney that had ended up in Fuller’s po ss es si on . (RR, Vol . 5, p . 12 7)
. To co ns ti tu te th eft , th ere m us t b e so m e fra ud ul en t t ak in g o f th e p ro pe r t y. R ose nbus h v

. Sta te , 136 T ex . Cr im
. 50 ( 1938 ). T he auth or ity ci te d by the S ta te in its b r i e f i s n o tap p l i c ab l e t o t h e p r e s e n ts i tu a t i o n . F u l l e r , a s p a rto f h e r n o rm a l dut ie s,-18-

m ad e dis bur se m en ts fr om the tr ust ac co unt to the ope ra tio ns ac co unt . I t w as r out ine pr ac tic e an d part

of he r job dut ie s to m ak e suc h tr an sf er s. T he c om

pla int in thi s
m at te r is tha t Th om as H ughe s’ m one y w as tr an sf er re d in to B re ntw ood’ s op er at ion s
ac co unt . E ve n if tha t transf er w as in er ro r, w ro ng, m ist ak en , or

w ha te ve r the sit

ua tio n
m ay be, it is not a cr im e if F uller did not have control over those fund s after they we re d e p o s i t e d i n t o t h e o p e r a t i o n s a c c o u n t . F u l l e r d i d n o t e x e r c i s e a n y c o n t r o l onc e the funds w er e put int o the ope ratio ns ac co unt an d furthe r she co uld no t. It is inc onsi ste nt t o a cc use one of the ft a nd the n arg ue the ar

tif ic e of the ft w as tha t sh e put fu nd s i n t he on e p la ce t ha t s he ha d a bs ol ut el y no way of a cces si ng . T he audi t and b ookk ee pin g of Br en tw ood w as f

law ed as w as sho w n by

the t es t i m o n y. The a

udit was based on assum ption s of cash rec eipts when in fact they
w e r e c h e c k s a n dt h e au d i twa s b a s e do n r e c o r d s k e p tb y th e r e c e p t i o n i s tWh i p k e y,
w hic h w er e al m ost uni ve rs al ly done inc or re ct ly
. T he onl y thi ng the audi tor c le ar ly
es ta bli she d is tha t the dis put ed f unds ne ve r le ft

the f ac ili ty a nd w er e in the ope ratio ns account that was under the control of Bre ntwood, and not under the control of Fuller. A s su ch , the e sse nti al e le m en ts o f the ft not onl y w er e not pr ove n by

ar easo na ble do ub t, b ut were ac tu al ly con cl us iv el y est ab li sh edot he rwis e. H uff v. Sta te , 897 S
. W
. 2d 8 29 ( T ex . App. - D al la s 19 95) pr ovi de s th e ru le f or
an al y zi ng e m

plo y ee the ft
. I n H

uff , the c om pa ny boo kke ep er

m ove d f unds a nd-19-

ex er ci se d c ontro l f

or he r ow n be ne fi t. Sh e use d th e funds to p ay he r pe rs ona l c re dit
card a nd, a t tha t po int , she w as e xe rc isi ng u nauth or iz ed c ontro l ov er

the pr ope rty

a nd
w as gui lty of th eft
. No suchsit ua tio n e xis t i n r eg ar d to F ull er . F ull er m ove d th e funds as pe r he r j ob but she did not , an d coul d not, the re af te r ex er ci se c ontro l, ta ke poss es sio n, or in any w ay pe rs ona lly be ne fi t f ro m the tr an sa ct ion
. A t m ost , it w as a cl er ic al e rr or

a nd, a t w or st, ne gli ge nt b oo kk eepi ng. H ow ev er , suc h am ist ak e or sit ua tio n do es not

r ise to ev ena rg uable c ri m ina l c ondu ct . I n sh or t, the re c anbe no
cr im e of the ft , w he n y ou d o no t have the pos se ssi on o f the funds or ev enthe hop e of ha vi ng th e p os se ss io n o f th e fu nd s.

AR GUM ENT AN D A UTH ORITIES A pe rs on c om

m its the ft if he unl aw fu lly ap pr opr ia te s pr ope rty w iththe int en t to de pr iv e t h e own er o f th e p ro pe rty. Tex.C r.C ode Ann § 3 1.0 3(

a)

. Appr opr ia te is ge ne ra lly de fi ne d a s m eanin g: (A ) to bring abo ut a transfer or purported transfer of t i t l e t o or other repossessory

interest in property , w hether to the actor or anoth er; or (B) ac quire or otherwise e xercise control over property other than real pr op ert y . Te

x. P en al C

ode § 31

. 01. In cases a lleging theft of property by an em ploy ee, theft generally

i s e st ablished by sho w ing the em

plo y ee did not

ha ve the auth or ity

to dis pose of

or appr opr ia te the-20-

pr op ert y in th e man n er al le ge d. Huff v. State, 897 S.W .2d 829 (Tex. App. - D allas 1 9 9 5 )
. T h e r e f

o r e , t h e f ti s e s t a b l i s h e db y s h o w i n g t h a tt h e e mp l o ye e a c t e di n s o me way in co ns i s t e n t wi th hi s l awfu l au th or it y . F re em an v . Sta te , 707 S
. W
. 2d 5 97 (T ex . Ci v. App. 198 6)
. Whe n th e em plo y ee de ci de s to unl aw fu lly and p er m an en tly de pr ive the law fu l owne r of the pr ope rty , he is ac tin g in anuna uth or iz ed c ap ac ity a nd ha s co m m it te d t he ft. Huff v. State, sup ra . O n th e oth er hand, the ft

doe s no t oc cur
u n t i l a n e mp l o ye e a c t s i n s o me w a y i n c o n s i s t e n twi t h h i s o r h e r u n l a w f u l au t h o r i t y. Ne wman v . Sta te , 115 S
. W
. 3d 1 18 ( 2003 ). I n su m m ar y , unl aw fu l a

ppr opr ia tio n occurs at that m om ent in tim e when the em ploy ee bre aches the trust that the em ploy er pla ce d in him

/he r. T he lin e betw ee n law fu l and unlaw fu l a ct ivi ty by a n e m plo y ee , is th eref or e, a qu es ti on of th e em

pl oyee’s s co pe of a ut ho rit y . Ne wm an v . Sta te , supra. I n t h e p r e s e n tc a s e , F u l l e r

wa s i n d i c t e df

o r t h e t h e f t o f Th o mas Hu g h e s ’ mo n e y. How ever, the rec ord does no t dem onstrate that Fuller handled h i s fu n d s other than transferr ing in to her em

ploy er’ s operations account to which she had no access. Part of Fu lle r’ s j ob inc lud ing m ak ing de posi ts of pa tie nt’ s m one y int o th e tr ust a cc ount . (V ol. 4, p . 4 7). F ull er ’ s j ob i nc lud ed dis bur sin g m one y

f ro m the tr ust a cc ount a nd de posi tin g i nto the ope ratio ns a cc ount . F ull er m ad e a dis bur se m en t fr om the tr ust fund int o the ope ratio ns ac co unt of Br en tw ood. Fu lle r ac tua lly w ro te the c he ck s bu t
som eo ne e lse sig ne d. ( RR , V ol. 5, pp. 25- 28)
. F ull er c oul d m ak e de posi ts i nto the-21-

ope ratio ns a cc ount but ha d nothi ng t o do w iththe a cc ount the re af te r. ( RR , V ol. 4, p. 46; RR , V ol. 5, pp. 15- 16)
. F ull er ’ s j ob w as to de posi t tru st m one y int o th e ope ratio ns ac co unt fr om tim e to tim e. N um er ous re sid en ts had m one y tha t c am e int o the tr ust a cc ount a nd w as the re af

te r tr an sf er re d in to the ope ra tio ns a cc ount to pa y f or item s such as room

and board owed to Brentwood. (RR, Vol. 4, pp. 178-17 9). Since this was Fuller’ s job to m ak e s u ch t rans fers she w as acting within the scope of her
em plo ym en t i n so doi ng. F ull er ’ s j ob w as to tr an sf er in j ust thi s m an ne r. O nc e the funds w en t i nto the ope ratin g acc ount , Fu lle r ha d no a cc es s w ha tso ev er . ( RR , V ol. 5, pp. 15- 16) O nly

N ei sle r or

ac or por at e re pr es en ta tiv e ha d a cc es s to the f unds in the op e r a t i on s a c c ount . ( R R , V ol
. 4, p. 46 )
. H e nc e , t he f un ds w e r e st i l l t he re a fter this cont roversy

ensued. (V ol. 5, pp. 125, 128, 129). O bvi ousl y , the tr an sf

er of f unds a s it w as be ing m ove d in to the ope ratio ns account was n o t ed to be in the nam e of T hom as Hughes along with m any other residents. If

Hughes did not need t h is m oney to pay his room and board as wa s
re pr es en te d du ri ng the tr ia l, the n he c le ar ly w oul d have ha d ac re dit

in the ope ratio ns sid e of Br en tw ood’ s bo oks. R eg ar dle ss, F ull er woul d have ha d no c ontro l and n o
ac ce ss and n o m eans o f ac qui ri ng the m one y onc e it w en t i nto the ope ra tin g a cc ount . Thi s v ery act of p la ci ng th e m on ey in an acco un t to whi ch sh e ha d no acce ss sh ows not on ly a lack of appropr i at i o n but no intent to d o so as well. Regar dless, Fuller-22-

w oul d have ha d no c ontro l and the m one y w as not los t, a nd i f ope ra tio ns d id the ir accounting p roperly , Hughes would certa inly have had a credit and as s uch, H ughes di d n ot an d c ou ld no t h av e lo st th e m on ey . T he re fo re , F ull er

ha d no abil it y to ap pr opria te the se f unds
. A s th e D ive rs ic ar e’ s audi tor

a cknow le dge d, T hom as H ughe s’ fu nd s w er e ne ve r ta ke n by Fu l l er . (R R, Vo l . 5 , p . 1 2 5 )
. Th es e f u n d s we re at al l t i m es i n Di v er s i ca re ’s op erat io ns acco un t an d n ev er ac ces se d b y Fu ll er. (RR , Vol . 5, p p. 1 25 -1 28 ). The State appears to ignore the fact that it alleged that Fuller stole Th om as Hughes’ m oney . Ye t the De fe n d an t had absolu tely no abilityto take Thom as H ughe s’ m one y

f ro m the ope ratio ns a cc ount , a nd i n fa ct , the sa m e w as ne ve r use d or ta ke n b y eit he r Fu ll er o r an y on e el se . (RR, Vol . 5, p p. 1 25 -1 29 ). T he S ta te dis co unt s th e re as oni ng i n R ose nbus h v

. Sta te , 136 T ex . Cr im
. 50 (1 93 8) c iti ng Minter v. State, 2 6 T e x . Ap p . 2 1 7 , 9 S
. W
. 5 6 1 w h i c h c o n t a i n e d th e fo llo w ing r ea soni ng:

“ T o c onst itu te the ft

the re m ust be af ra udul en t t ak ing of

the pr ope rty an d w hil e the re m ay be a ta kin g of

the pr ope rty

w ith out a ct ua l m anua l po sse ssi on o f it, sti ll the pr ope rty

m ust in som e m an ne r ha ve c om e int o th e poss es sio n of the pa rty a cc use d of

the the ft , e ith er

a ct ua lly or co nstru ct ive ly , or he c an not be sa id to ha ve tak en it ...” W e have found no auth o ri t y which holds th at m ere wounding of an anim al uponit s r an ge a nd the pur sui t of it w ith out ca ptu ri ng i t, w ith out

br ing ing it

in som e w ay und er the c ontro l and dom ini on of the party is suf fi ci en t t o c onst itu te a ta kin g.-23-

T he St at e dis co unt s th e ab ove r ea soni ng, c iti ng Ste wa rt v
. Sta te , 44 S
. W
. 3d 5 82 (T ex . Cr im
. App. 200 1)
. I n Ste wa rt , the co m pla inant’ s ex -husband w as thr ea te nin g to dis tr ibu te nud e pic tur es of he r if she did not pay him
. T he c om

pla inant w en t t o th e pol ic e w ho s et

up a sti ng ope ratio n. Mo ne y w as put in ane nve lop e an d de liv er ed to the D ef en da nt’ s m ai lbo x. T w en ty m inu te s la te r the de fe ndant w as ar re ste d w iththe
m oney . How ever, the State ign ores one part of St ewa rt
. The def endant was ar

rested
w i t h t h e mo n e y! This very poin t o f th e Ste wa rt ca se is dis cu sse d and m ad e cl ear in Tesor o R ef ining & Mar ke tin g C

o. , LLC v . Na tio nal

U nio n F ire I ns. Co
. of P itt

sbur gh, Pe nnsylvan ia, - F.Su pp. 3 d - 201 5 W L 152 943. I n th is c as e, T es or o w as sui ng i ts in su rance c om

pa ny f or e m plo y ee the ft
. T es or o, a n oi l r ef ine r, w as se lli ng o il to Emm ex , a n o i l d i s t ri b u t o r. En n ex ’s d eb tt o Te s o ro co n t i n u e d t o g ro w. Te s o ro ’s credit m anager, however, m anipulated docum ents such that it im proved. Ennex had
m il lions i n ale tte r of

c re dit
. T he c re dit

m an ag er f or ge d ase curi ty

a gr ee m en t f

ro m E nne x to T es or o. Whe n Te sor o att em pte d to ac t on the le tte r of cr ed it fo r pa ym en t of the debt, it lear

ned t h at t h e docum ent was f orged by its credit m anager. T esoro
m ade a c laim

for em ploy ee theft on its insurance policy which wa s denied. The Court found no theft citing and dis tingu ishin g the reasoning of Ste wa rt a s th e cr ed it
m an ag er ult im at ely did not

c ontro l the f

ue l. T he c re dit

m an ag er ’ s f

or ge ri es did

not-24-

tr an sf er pos se ssi on o r co ntr ol o f the f ue l - the f

ue l w as tr an sf

erre d onl y

upo n it s
su bs eq ue nt sal e b y

Teso ro to Enn ex . Appl y ing thi s re as oni ng to the pr es en t ca se , H ughe s’ m one y c am e unde r the
co ntr ol o f Fu lle r’ s e m

plo y er , Br en tw ood. F ull er m ay ha ve tr an sf

er re d H ughe s’
m oney from the trust account to the op erations account but at all tim es, it rem ained unde r the co ntr ol o f Br en tw ood. F ull er did not r em ove it f ro m Br en tw ood’ s c ontro l. In fac t, F uller had absolut ely no control o ver H ughes’ m oney when it w as deposited int o B re ntw ood’ s oper at ion s ac co unt . H ughe s’ m one y w as not de ple te d or tak enby ei th er Fu ll er o r Bre nt woo d b ut was s im pl y tra ns ferr edba ckto th e trus t ac co un t. At al l t im es , Bren two od m ai nt ai ne d c on tro l o f Hug he s’ m on ey . The sig nif

ic an ce of the de fe ndant e m

plo y ee s a ct

ua lly obt ai nin g th e funds is de m onstrate d in H

uff v . Sta te , 897 S
. W
. 2d 8 29 ( T ex . App. - D al la s 19 95)
. T he re the d e f e n d an t w a s h e r e m

p l o y e r ’ s b o o k k e e p e r . O n e o f h e r j o b s w a s to pa ythe
em ploy er’ s expenses. When an account becam e overdraw n, it wa s determ ined that th e de fend an t bo okke ep er ha d w ri tte n c om

pa ny c he ck s to pay

the de fe ndant’ s own A m er ic anE xpr es s bi lls
. Citi ng the pr ev iou sly sta te d law c onc er nin g e m plo y ee the ft , the Co urt r ea sone d a s f

oll ow s:

“ A s the co m

pa ny bookke ep er , ap pe llant ha d a ri ght to poss es s an d to a ce rt ai n ex te nt, c ontro l the co m

pa ny ’ s ch ec ks. H ow ev er , onc e ap pe llant d ec ide d to use the checks for her own benefit rather than f or the benefit of the com

pany , her-25-

co ntr ol o ve r the c he ck s ( an d th e fund s th ey r ep re se nte d) c oul d no lon ge r be considered consens ual. A s noted previo usly , w hen an em ploy ee or f

iduciary de ci de s, f or wh at e ve r re as on, to unl aw fu lly a nd p er m an en tly de pr ive the law fu l owner of its property , the e m ploy ee/fiduciary

is then a cting in an un authorized ca pa ci ty i. e. she is the n e xe rc isi ng u nauth or iz ed c ontro l ov er the pr ope rty a nd ha s c om m itt ed the ft
. A ga in, in Huf

f, the de fe ndant a ct

ua lly got the m one y . A ga in, in the pr es en t
ca se , F ull er ’ s j ob i nc lud ed tr an sf er ri ng f unds f ro m the tr ust a cc ount to the ope ratio ns account althoug h she did n ot actually sign th e check. It w as within the scope of her
au tho ri ty to pr ep ar e disb ur se m en t shee ts. H ow ev er , onc e the funds w er e dis bur se d, Fuller therea fter had a

bsolu tely no control or ac ce s s t o t he funds. Fuller had ab sol ute ly

no a bil ity to ta ke it f ro m the ope ra tio ns ac co unt . Sh e co uld not a nd d id n ot ta ke a ny of H ughe s’ m one y fr om the ope ra tio ns ac co unt . In fa ct , none of his f unds
we re e ver taken. H is m oney wa s alway s at the fac ility
. It h ad m er ely been m oved fr om on e acco unt

to an oth er . E ri ca

F ull er ne ve r too k it

a nd b y pla ci ng i t i n th e op erat io ns acco un t, h adno co nt ro l o ve r it
. E xe rc ise of co ntr ol w as f urthe r dis cu sse d in Bailey v . State, 855 S. W
. 2d 1 93 ( T e x . Ap p . - D a l l a s 1 9 9 4 )
. I n Bailey , the S umm a Corporation, a Ne w Me xico corporation, w as searc hing for investm ent oppo rtu nities when it cam e into contact
w ith an inv es tm en t spec ia lis t. U lti m at el y , de fe ndant con vin ce d Sum m a to o pe n up
ana cc ount

ove r w hic h th e de fe ndant d id n ot h av e sig na tur e au tho ri ty but his-26-

op erat iv es di d. Th e o pe rat iv es were d efen da nt ’s wife a nd th e wif e’s be st fri en d. D ef en da nt the n se t up a Te xa s c or por at ionund er

the na m e of

S um m a an d se t up a ba nk a cc ount

f or it
. H e the n ha d hi s op er at ive s tr an sf er the m one y

to thi s a cc ount . D ef en da nt arg ue d th at

the ev id en ce w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o de m onstra te appr opr ia tio n. H ow ev er , the Co urt f

ound appr opr ia tio n a s th e de fend an t ha d or ch es tr at ed the tr an sf er of f unds to his ne w ly

c re at ed T ex as c or

por at ionS um

m a’ s a cc ount

a nd de fen da nt ha d t he so le si gn at orau th or it y ov er t hi s ac co un t. E vid en ce in a the ft

pr ose cu tio n m

ust f urthe r showtha t the ac cu se d inte nde d to de pr iv e th e o wne r of

th e p ro pe rty at th e ti m e th e p ro pe rty was ta ke n. W irt z v . Sta te , 361 S.W .3d 694 (T ex.Cr im .App. 2 012). In determ ining whether the defendant had
cr im ina l i nte nt t o c om

m it the ft , the Co urt m ay co nsi de r w he the r the de fe ndant
ex pe ri en ce d pe rs ona l ga in f ro m the pr ope rty

obt aine d f

ro m the c om pla inants . Ch ris te nse n v . Sta te , 23 0 S .W .3d 75 (Tex .App . - Hou st on [1 Dis t.] 20 07 ). As st previousl y set forth, Fuller never rece ived any of Hughes’ m oney and cou l d n ev er ha ve re ce ive d an y of

H ughe s’ m one y . Mo re ove r, the int en t t o de pr ive m ust be f or so
ex te nde d ape ri od o f tim e tha t a m aj or portio n of the va lue or

e nj oym en t of

the pr ope rty is los t to the own er. Pen al Co de § 3 1.0 1. A ga in, H ughe s ne ve r los t the
e n jo ym e n t o r u s e o f h i s p r o p e rt y. I t n e v e r l e f t t h e B r e n t w o o d a c c o u n t s . I t a l w a ys
rem ai ne d t he re fo r hi s u se an d b en efi t.-27-

C on sc iou sn es s of

Gu ilt Fi na lly , the St at e ar gue s tha t F ull er ’ s c onc er n th at ane w a dm ini str at or

m igh t fi re he r de m onstrate d co nsc iou sne ss of gui lt. G en er al ly , an y c ondu ct on the part

of a person accused of a crim e su b se q u e nt to its c om m iss ion , w hic h in dic at es a
co nsc iou sne ss o f gui lt m ay be r ec ei ve d a s ac ir cu m stanc e le ndi ng t o pr ov e that he
co m m it te d t he act wit h wh ic h h e w as ch arg ed
. Cu ev a v . Sta te , 339 S
. W
. 2d 8 39 (T ex .Ap p . - Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 2 0 1 1 ). [e m p h as i s ad d ed ]. T he S ta te a rg ue s th at

F ull er a ct ed f igi dity a ro und adm inistr at or

Br ow n and inquir ed a s to w he the r she w as goi ng t o be te rm ina te d. F ir st o f al l, f or the ac ts to b e consciou sness of guilt , they m ust be sub sequent to th e alleged offe nse. B rown w as hir ed a s a dm ini str at or

in A ugus t 20 10. ( RR , V ol. 4, p. 134 ). F ull er ’ s c om m en ts and actions were im

m ediately after Brow n started in Augus t 2010
. (RR, Vol. 4, p. 135). Br ow n de sc ri be d th e ac ts a s f oll ow s: Q
. O ka y . D id M s. F ull er w ork at Br en tw ood be fo re y ou s tart ed in A ugus t of 201 0? A. Yes , sh e d id
. Q. So d es cr i b e your f irst contact with her w hen y ou started working at Br en tw ood. W as the re a nythi ng tha t st ood out in y our m ind ? A
. T h e r e w a s . I kn o w t h a t w h e n I f i r s t s t a rt e d t h e r e , s h e h a dc o me i n t o my office a ctually

on a couple of occasions and asked if I w as going to fire he r. (RR, Vo l. 4 , p. 1 35 ).-28-

T he al le ge d the ft w as on D ec em be r 31, 201 0. T he c ondu ct so d es cr ibe d by Br ow n wa s f

ive m onths before the a lle ge d th ef t so it doe s no t qu al if

y a s su bse que nt
co nd uc t. Re ga rd l e s s , t h i s i s n o t t h e s o rt o f e v i d e n c e t o w h i c h c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f gui lt ty pic al ly is ap pli ed
. T his is no t flight f ro m ac ri m e or

thi ngs of tha t so rt . T his is being nervou s around a new supervisor. If y ou accept the State’ s argum ent that Fuller
w as fi gid ity be ca

use she w as a w ar e tha t he r w ro ngdo ing w oul d be e xpos ed , the n y ou
w oul d have to ign or e the ve ry f ac ts tha t w er e de m onstra te d inthe r ec or d, not to
m en ti on th e fac t t ha t t he all eg edco nd uc t h adno t yet oc cu rred
. W oul d ape rs on w ithc onsc iou sne ss o f guil t a ft er be ing te rm ina te d f

ile ac la im
w ith the Texas Em

pl oym en t Co m

m is si on an d s ub

ject t he m se lv es to an

une m plo y m ent hearing? Fuller did so and the com m issio n found n o evidence of m iscondu ct. (RR,
vo l. 4 , p. 1 74 ). Further, Fuller hired an a ttorney and filed a law suit aga i n s t Diver sicare. D ive rs ic ar e hir ed a w or ld re now ne d law fi rm , H ay ne s & Boone , w ithaspe ci al ist in labor and em

ploy m ent law, M at t Ho lley , to defe nd Diversicar e. T he lawsuit w as
re m ove d to f

ed er al c ourt. Fu lle r w as und er the r igo ro us d isc los ur e re qui re m en ts o f fe de ra l c ourt a s w el l as be ing subj ec t to dis co ve ry in a fe de ra l law sui t. T his sor t of-29-

act io n wo ul d c ert ai nl y

fly in th e face of an y in fere nc e as to co ns ci ou sn es s o f gu il t. Fu lle r was su bjec tin g he rs el f an d lay ing he r sit ua tio n op ento ane xpe ri en ce d la bor and em ploy m ent law specialist to in quire in any way he saw fit. Rather, Diver sicare
w ithit s hi ghl y ex pe ri en ce d law y er , se ttl ed an d paid Fu lle r $16, 000. 00. T he re is n o
ratio na l se t of

f ac ts b y w hic h c onsc iou sne ss o f gui lt co uld pos sib ly be inf er re d e xc ep t
on th e p art of Di ve rs ic are. Suf ficienc y of the Evidenc e T he tr ia l c ourt f

ound tha t the ev ide nc e w as le ga lly ins uf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the
ve rd ic t of

the j ur y . T he r el ev an t st an da rd f or j udgi ng the ins uf

fi ci en cy of

the
ev ide nc e is whe th er, af

te r vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the S t a t e , a n y r a t i o n a l t r i e r

o f f a c tc o u l dh a v e f

o u n dt h e e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o f t h e c r i me be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. A de lm an v . Sta te , 828 S
. W
. 2d 418 ( T ex . Cr im
. App. 1992 ). T he evidence is sufficient under thi s s t an d ar d onlyif the State has affi rma t i v e l y p r ov en each of t he ess en ti al ele m en ts of t he ev id en ce. G old v . Sta te , 73 6 S .W .2d 86 5 (Te x.C rim. App . 19 87 ). U nde r thi s pr oc es s, the appe lla te c ourt r ec ogni ze s th e tr ie r of f act ro le as the sol e j udge of

the w ei ght

a nd credibi lity

of the e vid en ce a ft er

dr aw ing r ea sona

ble inference s from the evidence, and on review , the a ppellate court determ ines whether the ne ce ssary in fe re nc es m ad e by the tr ie r of

f ac t are r ea sona

ble , ba se d up on the-30-

c u m ul at iv e fo rce o f al l o f th e ev id en ce. Ada mes v. St at e, 3 5 3 S
. W
. 3 d 85 4 (T ex . Cr im
. App. 201 1)
. A n a ppe lla te c ourt w ill c ondu ct c onst itu tio na l re vie w of

the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce by

m ea sur ing the e vid en tiary su ffi ci en cy w ithe xpl ic it refe ren ce t o t he su bs ta nt iv e el em en ts of th e cri m in al of fen se as de fin ed by s ta te law. A dam es v . Sta te , supra. In this situatio n, th ere is absolut ely no evidence or inference uponw hic h ar at ion al tr ie r of f ac t c oul d have c onc lud ed tha t the re w as pr oof of the
esse nti al e le m en ts o f the ft be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. A s sh ow n a

bove , F ull er , in tr an sf er ri ng the f unds int o the ope ra tio ns a cc ount , e sse nti al ly put the f unds in the one pla ce she ha d ab sol ute ly no c ontro l and a bsol ute ly no w ay or hop e of e ve r re ce ivi ng
co ntr ol o f an y m one y tha t wa s in the ope ra tio ns ac co unt . O nc e the m one y w en t i nto the operations account, she had absolut ely no abilit y to access that ac count and n ever
w oul d be able to do s o. T he very fact tha t the m one y w as put int o th e ope ratio ns
ac co unt ne ga te s th at

the re w as a ny

int en t t o c om

m it a the ft
. C er

ta inl y by put tin g it int o th e ope ratio ns a cc ount , both e le m en ts o f int en t and a ppr opr ia tio n are not
es ta bl is he d b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t. By placing the m oney

in the operations account, any intent is negated. F uller ha d no a cc es s to the f

unds in the ope ra tio ns a cc ount . S ec ondl y , by pla ci ng the m

int o the ope ratio ns a cc ount , not onl y is int en t no t est ab li shed b ut the appr opr ia tio n el em en t of

the the ft cannot be es ta

bli she d. In shor

t, Fu lle r ha d a

bsol ute ly no c ontro l-31-

of th e fu nd s. Secondly , ther e w as n o forensic ac countin g that was perf orm ed by

law enforcem en t in this m atter. T here w as no audit bya tra ined audito r in this m atter. T he e nti re c as e of

the S ta te r es ts u

pon the audi t of

Mi lle r w ho w as ne ith er

tr ai ne d no r ed uc ated to pe rfo rm

audi ts o f thi s ty

pe . I n f ac t, Mi lle r adm itt ed

tha t sh e m ad e
as sum pti ons ba se d upo n th e re co rd ke ep ing of

Whip ke y . Whip ke y , a s th e
re ce pti oni st, e sse nti al ly

m ad e inc or

re ct e ntr ie s on al m ost

e ve ry r ec ei pt tha t w as m ad e dur ing thi s tim e per iod
. Mi lle r m ad e as sum pti ons tha t paym en ts w er e m ad e in c as h when that w as absolutelydem onstrated not to be the case. (RR , V ol. 5, p. 45). Miller te sti fi ed a s f oll ow s: Q
. Y ou d on’ t have the ex pe rie nc e to m ak e anaudi t l ike thi s, do y ou, be ca use y ou m iss ed

the m ost ba sic thi ng. Y ou b as ed

y our w hol e au dit tha t tha t i s c as h, c as h, a nd r igh t the re in y our ow n r ec or ds i s ac he ck
. A. Yes , si r. Q
. Y ou m iss ed

it , didn’ t y ou? Y ou j ust

f la t m iss ed

it , didn’ t y ou? A. Tha t i s a c he ckfro m May of 20 10
. (RR, Vo l. 5 , pp . 47 - 48 ). Q
. D id y ou f

ind asin gle c he ck

tha t E ri ca Fu lle r ev er

too k and - or

m ay be m ade up a stam

p: “ for deposit on ly ” to Er ica Fuller? A. No, s ir.-32-

Q
. D id y ou f

ind a nythi ng l ike tha t? A
. N o. Q
. Bu t y ou are the audi tor , r igh t? A
. Y es . Q
. Y o uc a n ’t f

i n do n e p e n n y t h a t w e n ti n t o h e r a c c o u n t , c a n yo uo r

n a me or an yt hi ng e lse
. R i gh t ? A. I ne ve r rev ie wedhe r acc ou nt s, n o. (RR, Vo l. 5 , p. 1 27 ). T he above sho w s th e au dit to be so s uspe ct

tha t no r at ion al tr ie r of

f ac t c oul d ha ve ba se d a ny inf

eren ce o f gu il t o n t he ab ov e. Mi lle r as the f

inanc ia l sp ec ia lis t f

or Br en tw ood cl earl y

e sta bli shes tha t the funds ne ve r le ft

the fa ci lity an d tha t Fu lle r ha d ab sol ute ly no co ntr ol ove r the f unds tha t w er e in the ope ratio ns ac co unt . A s such , as am at te r of law , no r at ion al tr ie r of fact co ul d h av e co nc lu de d t ha t t he re was ev id en ce b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t.

PR AY ER WH EREFORE , PREMIS ES CONSI DERED, Appellant Er ica L ynn Fuller pray s that t h e abo ve-sty led and num bered cause be set for oral argum ent, and that uponf ina l su bm iss ion , thi s C ourt a ff

irm the tr ia l co urt’ s j udgm en t i n a ll re spe ct s, a nd-33-

fo r suc h oth er an d furthe r re lie f, both a t l awa nd i n e qui ty , to w hic h sh e m ay be j ust ly
an d l eg al ly ent it le d. Respectf ully submitt ed, TH E M OO RE LAW F I RM, L .L .P.
B Y: /s/

Jame s R. Rod g e rs Jame s R. Rod g e rs

State L icense #17136300 Judy Ho dg kis s State L icense # 17136525 100 North Main Stree t Paris, Texas 75460-4222 Telephone 903/784-4393 Fa csimile 903/783-0042 Email: jrodge rs@mooref irm.com ATTORNEYS F OR APPEL L EE, ERI CAL YN

N F UL L ER CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE Pursuant to Rule 9.4(i)(3) of the Te xas Rules of Appellate P rocedure, the Brief of App el le e w as ac om

put er -g en er at ed

doc um en t and c ont ai ns 7 , 339 w or ds, not inc lud ing the Appe ndi x, if a ny . T he und er sig ne d att or ne y ce rt if ie s th at he r el ie d on the w or d c ount

of the c om put er pr ogr am , w hic h w as use d to pr ep ar e thi s do cu m en t.

s/Jam es R. Rodgers Ja m es R. Ro dge rs j r o d g e r s @ mo o r e f

i rm.-34- CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE I c e rt i f y t h a t a t r u e c o p y o f

t h e ab o v e d o c u men twa s d e l i v e r e dt o a l l a t t o rn e ys of r ec or d/p ar

tie s, in ac co rd an ce w iththe T ex as Ru le s of Appe lla te P ro ce dur e thi s 5th da y of A ugus t, 201 5. /s/ Ja m es R. Ro dge rs Jam es R. Rodgers j ro dge rs @m oor ef

irm . co m