### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00021- CR

Wil fre d Wa r r e n She ppar d, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL CO UNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 54845 , HO NORAB LE GORDO N ADAMS, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant Wi lfred War ren Sheppa

rd guilty of t heft of over $20,000. See Tex. P en . C o d e Ann. § 31.03(a), (e )(5) (West Supp. 2004-05). The c ourt assesse d punishment at imp ri so nme nt f

or fo ur y e ars , s us pe nd e d im

po sit ion of se nte nc e , and pla c e d a

pp e lla nt on c omm un ity supervision. Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the evidenc e does not support the jury ’s
ve rd ic t. We wi ll a ff

ir m. I n M ay 20 01 , a pp e lla nt, do ingbu sin e ss a s Th e Gy m, p ur c ha se d a

$2 0, 00 0 c e rt if

ic a te of de po sit a t E xtra c o B ank in Ki ll een. Th e CD wa s a ssi g ne d to the Te xas S e c re tary of State a s a
secur ity deposit pursuant to the He alth Spa Act. See Tex. Oc c. Code Ann. § 702.151 (West 2004).2

I n September 2001, a

ppellant re quested a

rele ase of the sec urity

deposit. The re quest was de nied by the sec reta

ry of state in a le tter to a

ppellant dated September 20, 2001, and signe d by Guy J oy ner, the c hie f o f t

he le g a l su

pp or t un it. On Octobe r 4, 2001, appel l an t prese nted to Mini Ay ala, a n employ ee of

Ex trac o Ba nk, a letter

purportingto be from Joy ner in his offic ial capa city and statingthat the $20,000
se c ur ity de po sit ha d be e n re le a se d to app e lla nt in f ull . B a se d o n th is l e tte r, Aya la c anc e lle d th e CD and g ave a

ppellant a cashier’ s chec k for $20,315.94, whic h he ca shed that day . J oy ner te stified that the letter w as a f

o rgery and that appe llant’s secur ity deposit had not bee n rele ased. The theft wa s dis c ov e re d w he n th e se c re tary of state su bs e qu e ntl y or de re d the ba

nk to pa y $1 6, 63 7. 75 fr om t

he CD t o re i mb u rs e c u s t o m er s o f T h e G y mfo r t h ei r l o s s es u

p o ni t s cl o s i n g. I n his brief, ap p ell ant ar g ues that he is not g uilty of theft be cause he wa s never deter mined to be per sonally

liable for the losses suffer ed by customers of T he Gy

m. He re l ies on
a c op y of an a g re e d f

ina l ju dg me nt a

nd pe rm ane nt i nju

nc tio n e nd ingc ivi l li tigati on by th e State ag ainst the corpor ate e ntity that appar ently

operated t he busi ness. This document was not introduced in evidence at appe llant’s trial. Documents attached to an appellate brief but not in evidence may not be consider ed on appe al. Po lla n v . S tate , 612 S.W .2d 594, 596 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). I n any event, a ppellant’s alleg ed lac k of personal liability to his customers is not a def ense to his use of a forg ed docume nt to appropriate the $20,315.94 from the ba nk. The e vidence i s l ega l ly

sufficie nt to sustain the guilty verdic t. See J

ackson v

. Vi rg ini a , 44 3 U. S. 30 7, 32 4 (1 97 9) (t e st fo r le g a l su ff ic ie nc y ); Gr iff in v . S tate , 614 S.W .2d 155, 158-3

59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (same)
. The point of err or is ove rruled and the judg ment of convic tion is affirme d.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Affir med Filed: May

26, 2005 Do Not Publish