# I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . P D - 0 8 6 4 - 1 1

B I L L I E J E A N A V E R Y , A p p e l l a n t

v . T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W F R O M T H E T H I R T E E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

B E E C O U N T Y
Womack, J ., delivere d the opinion of the unanimous Court.
The a ppellant was c onvicted of a ttempting to obtain a c ontrolled substance “throug h use of a f raudule nt prescr iption form.” The Thirte enth Court of Appe als ac quitted the appellant 1 

## beca use it found no evidenc e that she use d a fr audulent pre scription form. We shall affirm the 2

S e e T E X . H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C O D E § 4 8 1
. 1 2 9 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B )
. 1 A v e r y v . S t a t e , 3 4 1 S
. W
. 3 d 4 9 0 ( T e x . A p p . – C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 1 1 )
. 2

## Aver y - 2 Court of Appea ls’s judgme nt, though we disag ree with some of the Court’s re asoning and interpre tation of the re cord. I . Trial The e vidence showed that on January 15, 2009, the appe llant complained to her doctor of knee a nd back pa in and re ceive d from him a pre scription for f orty 2.5 milli g ram L ortab pills. Be fore she droppe d off the pr escr iption at the pharmac y , the appe llant attempted to scribble out the “2.5” and make it look li ke “7.5.” The on-duty pharma cist beca

me suspicious and ca lled the office of the a

ppellant’s doctor , wher e a nur se said that the pr escr iption shoul d have be en for 2.5 milli g ram pills. The phar

macist then ca lled store sec urity , who contac ted police. After the State re sted, the appe llant moved for a direc ted ver dict of ac quittal. She arg ued that, while there was e vidence that she committed forg ery , which mig ht allow a convic tion under Hea lthy & Saf ety Code Section 481.129(a) (5)( A), ther e wa s no evidenc e that she use d a fra udulent presc ription form as alleg ed in the indictment, which use d the statutory manner and means listed in Section 481.129(a) (5)( B) : 3 

## The testimony

is that the presc ription form is not fraudulent. I t is the prescr iption form of the doctor. What the testimony has bee n is that the presc ription, itself, that the doctor w rote on his form wa s altere d. ... There ’s no evidenc e that [the appellant] committed this fraud by using a fra udulent presc ription form .... The State re sponded that by altering an other

wise leg itimate prescr iption, the appellant

H e a l t h & S a f

e t y C o d e § 4 8 1
. 1 2 9 r e a d s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s : 3 ( a ) A p e r s o n c o m m i t s a n o f f e n s e i f t h e p e r s o n k n o w i n g l y : ( 5 ) p o s s e s s e s , o b t a i n s , o r a t t e m p t s t o p o s s e s s o r o b t a i n a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e o r a n i n c r e a s e d q u a n t i t y o f a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e : ( A ) b y m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , f r a u d , f o r g e r y , d e c e p t i o n , o r s u b t e r f u g e ; [ o r ] ( B ) t h r o u g h u s e o f a f

r a u d u l e n t p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r m ; o r ( C ) t h r o u g h u s e o f a f

r a u d u l e n t o r a l o r t e l e p h o n i c a l l y c o m m u n i c a t e d p r e s c r i p t i o n ... .

## Aver y - 3 had cr eate d a fr audulent pre scription form. The trial court de nied the appe llant’s motion. The jury found the a

ppellant g uilty

and asse ssed her

punishment of 25 y ear s’ conf inement and a

$1,500 fine. I I . Direc t Appeal Be fore the Thirtee nth Court of Appea ls, the appellant a rg ued that a “ presc ription form” consisted of “ only

two elements: (1) the ac tual paper a pra ctitioner uses to re cord a presc ription; and (2) that paper ’s pre printed marking s. I n order for a presc ription form to be fr audulent, one of those eleme nts must be directly aff ecte d by a fr audulent ac t.” B eca

use her fra udulent act a ffe cted only the pre scription information handwr itten by the doctor, the presc ription form itself was not fra udulent, and she w as entitled to an a cquittal. The State c ountere d by

arg uing tha t under He alth & Saf ety Code Section 481.075 – which outlines the “Off

icial Prescr iption P rog ram” that presc ribers must follow in order to prescr ibe Schedule I I controlled substanc es – the eleme nts of an “of ficial pre scription form” inc lude the 4 

## controlled substanc e pre scribed a s well as the qua ntity of that controlled substanc e. Be cause the 5 

## presc riber’ s written words we re pa rt of the “ officia l prescr iption form,” ac cording to the State, when the a

ppellant alter ed those wr itten words she turne d the entire document into a “f raudule nt presc ription form.” The Court of Appe als’s majority acc epted ne ither par

ty ’s ar g ument in full. I t ag ree d with the State that the pre scription form wa s “esse ntially ” an “ officia l prescr iption form.” I nstead of 6

S e e T E X . H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C O D E § 4 8 1
. 0 7 5
. 4 I d
. , a t ( e ) ( 1 )
. 5 A v e r y , 3 4 1 S
. W
. 3 d , a t 4 9 7
. 6

## Aver y - 4 addre ssing whe ther the a

ppellant’s ac tions fit the definition of using a “fr audulent pre scription form,” how ever , the Court of Appe als saw its job as deter mining whe ther the a

ppellant’s ac tions
wer e “mor e” like the “misrepr esenta tion, fraud, f org ery , dece ption, or subterfug e” ba rre d in Section 481.129(a) (5)( A), or like the “use of a fr audulent pre scription form,” ba rre d in Section 481.129(a) (5)( B)
. Be cause it determined that subsec tions (A) and ( B) wer e mutually 7 

## exclusive – i.e. , an ac tion might fall under (A) or it might fall under

(B ), but it could not fall under both – a

nd beca use it determined tha t the appellant’ s actions more c losely rese mbled “for g ery ” than “ use of a

fra udulent presc ription form,” the Court of A ppeals va cate d the trial court’s judg ment and ente red a verdic t of ac quittal. I I I . Fa ctual Matter s We gr anted the State’ s petition for discre tionary revie w to deter

mine whether

the Court of Appea ls corre ctly

interpre ted the phra se “f

raudule nt prescr iption form.” B efor e we can a ddress that matter, howe ver, w e nee d to addre ss severa l fac tual matters in the Court of Appe als’s opinion. A. L ortab The fir st sentence of the Court of Appe als’s opinion was: Appellant, B illie J ean A very , was c harg ed by indictment with obtaining an incre ased qua

ntity of a Sche dule I I controlled substanc e throug h the use of a fra udulent presc ription form, a sec ond-deg ree felony
. 8 

## We do not so read the r ecor d. The indictment alleg ed that the a ppellant attempted to use a fra udulent presc ription form “to obtain a c ontrolled substance , namely , L ortab ...” without

I d
. , a t 4 9 8
. 7 I d
. , a t 4 9 1
. 8

## Aver y - 5 specify ing w hich Schedule L ortab is on. The Court of A ppeals c ited to two case s stating that hy drocodone , one of the ingr edients in L ortab, is a Sche dule I I controlled substanc e. I t also cited 9 

## to a website tha t describe d L ortab a s a combination of hy drocodone and ac etaminophen. 1 0 

## A diffe rent pa g e on that same website, howe ver, state s that cer tain mix tures that include hy drocodone are Schedule I I I controlled substanc es. The Sche dules published by the 1 1 

## Commi ssioner of Public Hea lth confirm that hy drocodone is a Schedule I I controlled substanc e, but cer tain mix tures that include hy drocodone are Schedule I I I controlled substanc es. 1 2 

## Although the rec ord conta ins no information reg arding the spec ific hy drocodone mix ture contained in the L ortab pills the appellant soug ht, it does contain the phar macist’s testimony

that L ortab wa s a Schedule I I I controlled substanc e. The re w as no contra dictory testimony

or arg uments by

the par ties that she was mistaken. We think that the recor d must be rea d to say that the pre scription was for a Schedule I I I controlled substanc e. B. “ Offic ial Prescr iption Form” That re ading of the re cord me ans that the Court of Appe als was incor rec t to have looked to Health & Safety

Code Section 481.075 as a sour ce f or dete rmining the composite parts of a

I d
. , a t 4 9 1 n . 1 ( c i t i n g S m i t h v . S t a t e , N o . 2

- 0 7
- 1 2 5
- C R , 2 0 0 8 W L 2 5 5 3 4 5 1 , a t * 1

- 2 , 2 0 0 8 T e x . A p p . 9 L E X I S 4 7 7 9 , a t * * 4

- 5 ( T e x . A p p . – F o r t W o r t h J u n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 , p e t
. r e f ’ d ) ( m e m o p . , n o t d e s i g n a t e d f o r p u b l i c a t i o n ) , a n d B e a t y v . S t a t e , 1 5 6 S
. W
. 3 d 9 0 5 , 9 0 6 n . 2 ( T e x . A p p . – B e a u m o n t 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t
. ) )
. I d
. ( c i t i n g L o r t a b , h t t p : / / w w w . d r u g s . c o m / l o r t a b )
. 10 H y d r o c o d o n e B i t a r t r a t e M o n o g r a p h , h t t p : / / w w w . d r u g s . c o m / m o n o g r a p h / h y d r o c o d o n e - b i t a r t r a t e . h t m l ( l a s t 11 v i s i t e d F e b r u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 1 2 )
.

D r u g s a n d M e d i c a l D e v i c e s : C o n t r o l l e d S u b s t a n c e s S c h e d u l i n g P a g e , 12 h t t p : / / w w w . d s h s . s t a t e . t x . u s / d m d / c o n t r o l

_ s u b s t

_ s c h e d
. s h t m ( l a s t v i s i t e d F e b r u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 1 2 ) ; s e e a l s o , T E X . H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C O D E § 4 8 1
. 0 3 2 ( a u t h o r i z i n g C o m m i s s i o n e r o f P u b l i c H e a l t h t o p u b l i s h a n d u p d a t e c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e S c h e d u l e s )
.

## Aver y - 6 “pre scription form.” By its terms, Section 481.075 describe s “off icial pre scription forms,” 1 3 

## which pre scriber s must use when pre scribing a Schedule I I controlled substanc e. The sec tion 1 4 

## does not mention presc riptions for Schedule I I I controlled substanc es. The c opy of the a ppellant’s pre scription contained in the r ecor d does not appe ar to be sequentially

numbere d, as Section 481.075(b) require s of an “ officia l prescr iption form.” Moreove r, “of

ficial pre scription forms” a re pr inted by

the Depa rtment of Public Safety , and the 1 5 

## appellant dire cts us to a pag e on the De partment of Public Safe ty ’s website tha t shows samples of “off icial pre scription forms” tha t are signific antly

differ ent from the a

ppellant’s pre scription form. There is nothing in the re cord or in the statutes to lead us to believe that the appe llant 1 6 

## used an “ officia l prescr iption form.” Thus Section 481.075 is, at most, of limi ted utility in analy zing this case.

C. Subsections of a Statute Nee d Not Be Mutually Ex clusive I n compar ing Sec tion 481.129(a)( 5)(A) to Section 481.129(a)( 5)(B ), the Court of Appe als beg an its analy sis by

looking a t the history

of the statute. The Court of Appe als noted that

1 7 

## befor e the se ction was re codified in 1989, the thre e subsec tions that are c urre ntly under Sec tion 481.129(a) (5) ha d all been pa rt of a sing le subsection. The prede cessor statute, Article 4476- 15

S e e A v e r y , 3 4 1 S
. W
. 3 d , a t 4 9 6 ( “ W e f i n d s e c t i o n 4 8 1
. 0 7 5 ( e ) t o b e a p p l i c a b l e b e c a u s e t h e d r u g i n v o l v e d 13 i n t h i s m a t t e r
– L o r t a b

– i s a S c h e d u l e I I c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e . ” )
.

T E X . H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C O D E § 4 8 1
. 0 7 5 ( a )
. 14 I d
. , a t ( c )
. 15 T e x a s P r e s c r i p t i o n D r u g P r o g r a m F o r m s , 16 h t t p : / / w w w . t x d p s . s t a t e . t x . u s / R e g u l a t o r y S e r v i c e s / p r e s c r i p t i o n

_ p r o g r a m / p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r m s . h t m ( l a s t v i s i t e d F e b r u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 1 2 )
. A v e r

y , 3 4 1 S
. W
. 3 d , a t 4 9 7
. 17

## Aver y - 7 Section 4.09, was e nacte d in 1979 and ame nded in 1985. Be fore the 1989 re codifica tion, it 1 8 1 9



## rea d, in releva

nt part: (a) I t is unlawful for a

ny person knowing ly

or intentionally : (3) to ac quire, obtain, or attempt to acquire or obtain possession of a controlled substanc e by

misrepre sentation, fra

ud, forg ery , dece ption, or subterfug e, or throug h use of a fra udulent presc ription form or fr audulent ora l or telephonic ally

communicated pr escr iption .... The 1989 re codifica tion placed the Controlled Substance s Act, including former Article 4476- 15 in the Hea lth & Safe ty

Code. The f

raud se ctions beca

me par t of Section 481.129, which a t the time rea d: (a) A per son commits an offense if the per son knowing ly or intentionally : (4) possesse s or attempts to possess a controlled substanc e: (A) by misrepre sentation, fra

ud, forg ery , dece ption, or subterfug e; (B ) throug h use of a

fra udulent presc ription form; or (C) throug h use of a

fra udulent oral or te lephonically communicated presc ription .... 2 0 

## Despite the L eg islature’s spe cific state ment that the 1989 re codifica tion was “a nonsubstantive revision,” the Court of Appe als saw in the 1989 r ecodif ication “a signific ant 2 1 

## chang e.” B y

dividing the long list of manner a nd means in old Article 4476- 15 into three subsections in Section 481.129, the L eg islature, ac cording to the Court of Appea ls, “clea rly intended for

eac h provision to constitut e a se para te offe nse, ra ther than two sides of the same coin.” The Court of Appea ls believed that the subse ctions should have complete ly independe nt

A c t o f M a y 2 , 1 9 7 9 , 6 6 t h L e g . , R
. S
. , c h
. 9 0 , § 6 , 1 9 7 9 T e x . G e n . L a w s 1 6 3 , 1 6 5
. 18 A c t o f M a y 2 5 , 1 9 8 5 , 6 9 t h L e g . , R
. S
. , c h
. 2 2 7 § 1 0 , 1 9 8 5 T e x . G e n . L a w s 1 1 0 2 , 1 1 2 3
. 19 A c t o f J u n e 1 4 , 1 9 8 9 , 7 1 s t L e g . , R
. S
. , c h
. 6 7 8 § 1 , 1 9 8 9 T e x . G e n . L a w s 2 2 3 0 , 2 9 4 2
. 20 I d
. , a t 2 2 3 0
. S e e A v e r

y , 3 4 1 S
. W
. 3 d , a t 5 0 3 ( P e r k e s , J
. , d i s s e n t i n g ) ( “ T h e m a j o r i t y ’ s o p i n i o n i s p r e m i s e d 21 o n a m i s t a k e n n o t i o n t h a t t h e 1 9 8 9 r e c o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c o n t r o l l e d

- s u b s t a n c e s f r a u d s t a t u t e w a s a s u b s t a n t i v e c h a n g e i n t h e l a w . ” )
.

## Aver y - 8 meaning s, to avoid rende ring a subsec tion “superf luous.” There fore , the Court of Appe als saw

2 2 

## its task as “dete rmining w hether [t he appe llant’s] actions fall within S ection 481.129(a )(5) (A) or 481.129(a) (5)( B) .” The task in conduc ting a

sufficie ncy

revie w is not to determine which of fense the appellant should or could have be en cha rg ed with; it is t o deter

mine whether

a ra tional fac t finder could have found bey ond a re asonable doubt that the defe ndant was g uilty of the e lements of the offe nse with which she w as ac tually char g ed. Our c riminal laws ar e numer ous, and some of

2 3 

## them are quite broad. I t is not i nfre quently the ca se that an a ct that violates one pe nal statute may violate another

statute as we ll. W hen statutory provisions overlap in this way , there is no inherent
rea son to infer that the L eg islature intended the m to be mutually exclusive. A leg islature may

2 4 

## decide that overla

p is in some way s desirable ; it allows prosecutors the discr etion to char g e the offe nse that they

believe is most descr iptive of a pa rticular a ction, or that has the most appropr iate pena lty

rang e for a par ticular a ction. Section 481.129(a) (5) is an e x ample of ove rlapping statutory provisions. The lang uag e in subsection (A) (“misre prese ntation, fraud, f org ery , dece ption, or subterfug e”) is broad and w ould seem to enc ompass virtually ever y action that would fa ll under subsec tions (B) or (C). The overla pping nature of the se terms c an be se en in the dictionar y definitions used by

the Court of Appea ls. I ts definitions of “fra ud” all involved “misre prese ntation,” its definition of “misrepr esenta tion” involved “an intent to dec eive,” and its definitions of forg ery all involved

A v e r y , 3 4 1 S
. W
. 3 d , a t 4 9 7 n . 9
. 22 J a c k s o n v . V i r g i n i a , 4 4 3 U
. S
. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 )
. 23 S e e , e . g . , G r a y v . S t a t e , 1 5 2 S
. W
. 3 d 1 2 5 , 1 3 3 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t l i s t o f i n t o x i c a n t s i n D W I 24 s t a t u t e w a s “ p a t e n t l y o v e r l a p p i n g ” )
.

## Aver y - 9 “fr audulently ” making a docume nt. To interpre t “use of a fra udulent presc ription form” or “ use 2 5 

## of a f raudule nt oral or tele phonically communicated pr escr iption” in a way that did not overlap with subsection (A)’ s “fr aud” w ould require doing g rea t violence to the plain lang uag e of the statute. The fa ct that terms in these statutory subsections overla

p does not rende r any

of the subsections meaning less. Whil e subsec tion (A) is broad e noug h to encompass most fra udulent attempts to obtain controlled substance s, the other subsec tions allow the State, if it chooses, to draf t a more spe cific c harg e that allows the tria l court to cra ft a be tter and more informative jury instruction, and that provides more notice to the def endant r eg arding the spec ific ac t on which the cha rg e is based. B y

trea ting ove rlapping statutory provisions as mutually

exclusive, the Court of Appe als impinge d on the State’s discre tion in determining w hat cha rg e to bring
. An appe llate cour

t’s belief tha t an appe llant’s actions more c losely rese mble an unchar g ed off

ense tha n the offe nse ac tually

char g ed is not a leg itimate basis for an a cquittal. Sufficienc y

of evide nce is re viewed by compar ing the evidenc e adduc ed at tria l to the elements of the off ense a ctually

char g ed. I V. Sufficienc y Review Our disag ree ment with the Court of Appea ls’s rea soning doe s not mean it rea ched the wrong result. The f

act that subsec tions of Section 481.129 overlap in some c ircumstance s does not chang e the State’ s burden of proving the statutory

manner and mea ns that it actually

char g ed. A. Standard of

Review On a c halleng e to the suff iciency of the e vidence , a cour

t must determine “whe ther, a fter

A v e r y , 3 4 1 S
. W
. 3 d , a t 4 9 8
. 25

## Aver y - 10 viewing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, any rational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt.” When a 2 6 

## statute lay s out alternative ma nner a nd means of c ommitt ing a n offe nse, the manne r and me ans included in the cha

rg ing instrument be comes a n essential ele ment that the State must prove bey ond a re asonable doubt. Proof of a differ ent, uncha

rg ed, manne r and me ans will not support 2 7 

## a convic tion for the off

ense tha t was cha

rg ed. 2 8 

## The que stion for us to determine he re is whe ther ther e is sufficie nt evidence of the offe nse that wa s char g ed: that the appe llant “use[d] a fr audulent pre scription form.” I n construing a statute, we look first to the statute’s literal text, and “we rea d words and phr ases in conte x t and construe the m acc ording to the rules of g rammar and usag e.” “[W ]e may presume tha t eac h 2 9 

## word in the statute ha s a purpose , and that wor ds not defined in the statute a re use d in their ordinary and common sense .” 3 0



## B. Pre scription and Presc ription Form The “ Def initions ” sec tion of the Controlled Substances Ac t defines “ presc ription” as “a n order by a pra ctitioner to a pha

rmac ist for a c ontrolled substance for a particula r patient that specifie s [certain informa tion about the patient, the pre scriber , and the pr escr ibed drug ].” There 3 1 

## is no specific de finition of a “pr escr iption form,” but provisions of the Hea lth & Safe ty Code

J a c k s o n , 4 4 3 U
. S
. , a t 3 1 9 ( e m p h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l )
. 26 S e e G e i c k v . S t a t e , 3 4 9 S
. W
. 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 5 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 1 1 )
. 27 C a d a v . S t a t e , 3 3 4 S
. W
. 3 d 7 6 6 , 7 7 6 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 1 1 )
. 28 L o p e z v . S t a t e , 2 5 3 S
. W
. 3 d 6 8 0 , 6 8 5 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 0 8 )
. 29 P r u d h o m v . S t a t e , 3 3 3 S
. W
. 3 d 5 9 0 , 5 9 4 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 1 1 )
. 30 T E X . H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C O D E § 4 8 1
. 0 0 2 ( 4 1 )
. 31

## Aver y - 11 provide c lues as to its meaning
. As we ha ve said a bove, Section 481.075 desc ribes the “ Offic ial Prescr iption P rog ram” used for presc ribing Schedule I I controlled substanc es and, a s such, is not directly applicable to this case unde r Schedule I I I . Nonethele ss, we ca n use it as a tool to help us understa nd other, applicable statutes. Section 481.075(a) states that a pr escr iption for a Schedule I I controlled substance should be rec orded on a n officia l prescr iption form. This comports with the common usag e of the word “ form.” Just as tax information should be re corde d on a tax form to cre ate a completed tax return, so too pre scription information should be re corde d on a pre scription form to cre ate a

completed pr escr iption. The infor mation that is written on the form is not the for m 3 2 

## itself. As Subsection 481.075(e) say s, “Eac h officia l prescr iption form or elec tronic pre scription used to prescribe a Sc hedule I I controlled substance must contain [certain informa tion] ” (empha sis added). This sec tion describes the written informa tion that must be wr itten on the form at the time it is used. The written infor mation becomes pa

rt of the complete d prescription , not a part of the form. I n other pa

rts of Section 481.129, it is obvious t hat the leg islature intended tha t the distinction between a

presc ription and a pre scription form be le g ally rele vant: (c) A per son commits an offense if the per son knowing ly or intentionally : (1) de livers a pr escr iption or a presc ription form for othe r than a valid medical purpose in the c ourse of

profe ssional prac tice; or (2) possesse s a pre scription for a controlled substanc e or a presc ription form unless the pre scription or pre scription form is possessed [in certa in enumer ated c ircumstance s]. (f) An offe nse under

Subsection (c) (1) is:

C o m p a r e § 4 8 1
. 0 7 5 ( e ) ( 1 ) ( i n f o r m a t i o n f

r o m a p r e s c r i b e r t h a t m u s t b e w r i t t e n o n a n o f f i c i a l p r e s c r i p t i o n 32 f o r m u s e d t o p r e s c r i b e a S c h e d u l e I I c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e ) w i t h § 4 8 1
. 0 0 2 ( 4 1 ) ( i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d f

o r a p r e s c r i p t i o n , g e n e r a l l y )
.

## Aver y - 12 (1) a felony of the sec ond deg ree if the def endant de livers: (A) a presc ription form; or (B ) a pr escr iption for a contr olled substance listed in Schedule I I ; and (2) a felony of the third deg ree if the def endant de livers a pr escr iption for a controlled substanc e listed in Schedule I I I , I V, or V. (g ) An off

ense unde r Subsection (c )(2) is: (1) a state jail felony

if the def endant possess: (A) a presc ription form; or (B ) a pr escr iption for a contr olled substance listed in Schedule I I or I I I ; and (2) a Class B misdemea

nor if the de fenda

nt possesses a pre scription for a controlled substanc e listed in Schedule I V or V. I n a sche me in which the illeg al possession or deliver y of a pr escr iption is punished more or less
sever ely depending on the Schedule of the pre scribed c ontrolled substance , the illeg al possession or deliver y of a pr escr iption form rec eives the hig hest level of punishment. This would see m to flow fr om the presc ription form’s potential to bec ome a pr escr iption for any ty pe of pr escr ibable controlled substanc e. Fr om these statutory

infere nces, a s well as common usag e of la ng uag e, we hold that “pre scription form” r efe rs to a pre -printed f orm desig ned to have presc ription information written on it. Throug h statutory

infere nce, w e also c onclude that the L eg islature intended f or there to be a leg al distinction between pr escr iption forms and completed pr escr iptions. C. W ritten Prescr iption I nformation I s Not Mentioned in Section 481.129(a) (5)( B) The State a

rg ues that interpr eting “use of a fr audulent pre scription form” to r efe r only to situations in which the form is fra udulent, rathe r than to situations in which the written presc ription is fraudulent, will result in a statutory offe nse with no rea l-world applications. The State make s this arg ument under the mistaken belief tha t, under our inter preta tion, Section 481.129(a) (5)( B) will apply only to acts of obtaining (or a ttempting to obtain) c ontrolled

## Aver y - 13 substances using fra

udulent presc ription forms that are blank. B ut there is no re ason to so constrict the statute. Subsec tion (B) applies to situations where a n individual knowingly possesses, obtains, or a ttempts to poss ess or obtain a controlled substanc e or a n incre ased quantity of a c ontrolled substance throug h use of a fra udulent presc ription form . The wr iting on the form is not an e lement of that off ense. D. Application The State c harg ed the a

ppellant with attempting to obtain a controlled substanc e “thr oug h use of a fra udulent presc ription form.” I t then adduce d evidenc e that the a ppellant fra

udulently altere d information that was ha ndwritten on a le g itimate prescr iption form. Whi le this evidence would have suppor

ted a c onviction had the State cha rg ed the a ppellant using other statutory
manner and mea ns that were available , the evidenc e does not support a conviction for the offe nse that was a ctually

char g ed. V. Conclusion We ag ree with the Court of Appea ls judgment, a lbeit for diffe rent re asons. We aff irm the Court of Appea ls’s judgme nt of ac quittal.
Deliver ed F ebrua

ry 29, 2012. Publis h.