1 ... S e n io r j u d g e sitt ing b y a ssig n m e n t.

i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 72 0- CR Patricia F oster SK

ELTO N , Appellant
v . The STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 38th J udicial District Court, Real County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2004-CR-934-DR Honora ble Henr y G. Schuble, Judge Pre siding 1 Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: J une 9, 2010. AFF I RMED Patricia F oster Skelton was convicted of forg ery . The trial court sentenced her to one year in p ri so n, but pl a c e d h e r o n c omm un ity su pe rv isi on fo r t wo y e ars . Ske lto n a

pp e a ls t he jud g me nt,
asser ting the jur

y char g e author ized c onviction f or a theor y not contained in the indictment and tr ial
c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e . We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.04

- 08

- 00 72 0- CR

- 2- BACK GR OUND Skelton was an attorney

who pra cticed in L eaky , Texas. Skelton was investigated for f org ery
re late d to a

wi ll s he fi le d in

pr ob a te c ourt

a s h e r d e c e a se d c lie nt’ s purp or te d la st w ill and

te sta me nt. Ultimately , the investig ation conclude d and the gr and jury returne d an indi ctment cha rg ing Skelton with one count of f

org ery . I n pertinent pa

rt, the indictment alleg ed: [O] n or about May

30, 2003, [S kelton] di d then and there, with i ntent to defra ud or ha rm ano the r, a lte r a wr iti ng so it purp or te d to be the a c t of Ys idr o Ca na le s, wh o d id no t a uth or ize the a c t, a

nd sa id writi ng was a

wi ll o f t he te no r f oll ow ing : L a st Wi ll and Te sta me nt o f Y sid

ro A. Ca nale s f

ile d o f r e c or d in

the Re a l Co un ty

Pr ob a te Court . . . . I n the abstra ct portion of the jury char g e, the judg e included de finitions of forg ery by altering a d o cu m en tan d

fo rge ry b y p as s i n g a f

o rge d d o cu m en t
. T h e ap p l i ca t i o n p ar agr ap h i n t h e j u ry ch ar ge provided: Now, if you find from the e vidence beyond a re as o n able doubt that on or about May 30, 2003, in Re al County , Texas, the defe ndant, Patricia F oster Skelton, did the n a nd the re , w ith in ten t to de fr a ud or ha rm ano the r, a lte r a

wr iti ngso it purpo rt e d to be the a c t of Ys idr o Ca

na le s, wh o d id n ot a

uth or ize the a c t, a

nd sa id writing was a

will of the tenor f

ollowing: L ast Wil l and T es t ament of Ysidro A. Cana le s f ile d o f r e c or d in the Re a l Coun ty Pr ob a te Court , an d the de fe nd ant P a tr ic ia F os te r S ke lto n k new a t th e tim e sh e fi le d s a id d oc ume nt w ith the Re a l Co un ty Pr ob a te Court

that it wa s a fo rg e d w ri tin g , th e n you

wi ll fi nd the de fe nd ant P a tr ic ia F os te r S ke lto n guil ty

of fo rg e ry a s c ha rg e d in the ind ic tme nt. Skelton did not object to the char g e. Skelton was c onvicted of f org ery and now a

ppeals c omplaining of c ha rg e e rr or and ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. E N LAR GEM ENT O F THE I NDI CT M E NT S k el t on contends the c harg e wa s defe ctive bec ause the application portion of the cha rge inc or po rate d b oth

fo rg e ry by a lte ri nga do c ume nt a

nd by pa ssi nga fo rg e d d oc ume nt. Ske lto n a lso04

- 08

- 00 72 0- CR

- 3- a s s e rt s t h e s c o p e o f t h e f

o r g e r y i n d i c t m e n t w a s e x p an d e d a t t r i a l b y t h e S t a t e ’ s ar g u m e n t s t o t h e j u r y, witness testimony , and the jury char g e. I n revie wing a cla im of char g e er ror, we must first deter

mine whether

err or exists
. Hutch v. Sta te , 922 S.W. 2d 16 6, 17 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Al ma nz a v . S

tate , 6 8 6 S. W. 2 d

1 5 7 , 1 7 1 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1984). I f we find err or, we must then deter mine whether

the er ror c aused suf

ficient ha rm to require reve rsal. Hutch , 9 22 S.W. 2d a t 17 1; Al

ma nz a , 686 S.W .2d at 171. The de g ree of har m
nece ssary for rever sal depends upon whether the error wa s prese rved. Al ma nz a , 686 S.W .2d at 171. Be cause S k el t o n d id not object to the char g e, she must demonstrate she suffe red a ctual egreg ious harm; that is, the er

ror must be so harmful that it aff ects the very basis of the c ase, de prived he r of
a valuable r ight, or

vitally aff ecte d a def

ensive theor

y . Se e W ar ne r v . S tate , 245 S.W .3d 458, 461-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). A j ur y c ha rg e may no t e nla

rg e the of

fe ns e a lle g e d a

nd a uth or ize the jur

y to c on vic t a defe ndant on a ba sis or theory permitted by

the jury char g e but not alleg ed in the indictment. Head

v . S tate , 299 S.W .3d 414, 439 (Tex. App.—Houston [14 Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d). Aperson is to be tried only on the cr imes alleg ed in the indictment. Cas til lo v . S tate , 7 S. W. 3 d

2 5 3 , 2 5 8 ( T e x. App.—Austin 1999, pet. ref ’d). The Te x as Penal Code de fines a forg ery offe nse i n sever al way s, two of which a re r eleva nt to our discussion—forg ery by cre ating the forg ed docume nt and forg ery by passing the forg ed document. Section 32.21 of the Te xas P e na l Co de de fi ne s th e of fe ns e of fo rg e ry a s: (A ) t o a lte r, make , c omp le te , e xec ute , or a uth e nti c a te any

wr iti ngso that it purp or ts:04

- 08

- 00 72 0- CR

- 4- (i ) t o b e the a c t of

ano the r who did

no t a uth or ize that a c t; (ii) to have be en executed at a ti me or place or in a number ed sequenc e other

than was in fa ct the ca se; or (iii) to be a c opy of an orig inal when no such orig inal exis ted; (B ) to i s s ue, tra

nsfer , reg ister the tra

nsfer of, pass, publish, or otherwis e u t t er a

writing that is forg ed within the meaningof Parag raph ( A); or (C) to possess a wr iting that is forg ed within th e m eaning of Para g ra ph(A ) w ithint e nt t o utte r i t in a manne r spe c if

ie d in Parag raph ( B)
. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN § 32.21(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2009). T h e i n d i ct m en t a l l e g e d

S k el t o nco m m i t t edt h e o ff en s e o f f o rge ry b y al t er i n g a w ri t i n g. Sk e lt o nc o n te n d s th e a

p p li c a ti o n p ar a g r a

p h a ls o a u th o r iz e d a c o n v ic ti o nf

o r f o r g e r y b y p a s s in g . We disag ree . The e lements of for g ery

by alteringa docume nt are that a per son (1) forg es (2) a wr iting (3) with i n t ent to harm or de fra ud another
. Ex parte Porter , 827 S.W .2d 324, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). In order

to prove the of

fense of for g ery

by passing , the State must show the defe ndant: (1) with intent to defraud or

harm a nother (2) passed ( 3) a wri t i n g (4 ) t h at p urported to be the ac t of another and (5) other pe rsons did not authorize the act. T EX . P EN A L C ODE A NN . § 32.21 (Ve rnon Sup p. 20 09 ); W

ill iam s v . S

tate , 688 S.W .2d 486, 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). I ntent to defra ud or harm re quires proof

of knowledg e the instrument is forg ed. W illiams , 688 S.W .2d at 488. Her e, the a

pplication para g raph a

uthorized a conviction if the jury found Skelton “did then
and the re , w iththe int e nt t o d e fr a ud or ha rm ano the r, a lte r a wr iti ng .” Th e a pp lic a tio n p ara g ra

pha lso inc lud e d o ne e le me nt fo r the of fe ns e of fo rg e ry by pa ssi ng —“ Ske lto n kne w at the tim e sh e fi le d s a id document with the Rea l County Probat e Court that it was a for g ed docume nt.” Howe ver, the application par ag raph did not c ontain the essential element that she passed the document. The ref ore,04

- 08

- 00 72 0- CR

2 ... If any t hi ng, t he charge i ncreased t he b urden o n t he Stat e b y requi ri ng t he Stat e t o p rove no t only a f o rgery b y al t eri ng a do cum ent , but ad d ed t he ad d i t i o nal el em ent t hat s he knew i t was a f o rged do cum ent when s he f i l ed i t i n t he p ro b a te c o u rt.

- 5- the c ha rg e did no t a uth or ize the jur

y to c on vic t Sk e lto n o n a

ba sis no t a lleged in the i nd ic tme nt. 2 There was no e rror

in the court’s c harg e. Skelton al s o co n tends the State enla rg ed the theor

y of guilt through c ounsel’s opening
s t at em en tan d

cl o s i n g ar gu m en tt o t h e ju ry an d wi t n es s t es t i m o n y . C i t i n g Un ite d S tates v . R ob le

sVe rti z , 155 F.3d 725 ( 5th Cir. 1998), Skelton argues the State improper ly “construc tively

amende d” the indictment by

arguing the theory of forg ery by passing
. I nitially , we note Skelton c ites no Texas
c a se s a d o p t i n g t h e c o n c e p t o f “ c o n s t r u c t i v e a m e n dm e n t ” o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t
. S e c o n d , t h e c ou rtin Ro ble s- Ve rti z stated that no construc tive am en dment occur s when “ the indictment contained a n
acc urate descr iption of the crime, a nd that crime w as prose cuted at trial
. . . .” Id . at 728 (quotations and citations omitted). Her e, the indictment cha rg ed Skelton with the offe nse of f org ery by altering
a wr iting. The j u ry ch arge authorized the jury to convict only

on that theory . Even if the constructive a

mendment co ncept is re cog nized under Texas law, ther e wa s no constructive amendment of

the indictment.

I N EF FE C TI V E A SSI STA N C E O F C OU N SEL Ske lto n c on te nd s sh e re c e ive d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nce of c ouns e l be c a

us e he r t ri a l c ouns e l: (1 ) d id n ot o bje c t to th e S tat e’s c omm e nts in o pe nin g state me nt t hat e xpand e d th e the or

y of g uil t beyond the scope of the indictment; (2) f ailed to object to the State’ s re fe re n ce s t o Skelton’s invocation of he r rig ht to remain silent and rig ht to c ounsel; (3) failed to obje ct to testimony from a fa ct wit ness as to his opinion of S kelton’s guilt; (4) failed t o object to ce rtain evide nce r eg arding
rec ords from a g ambling casino; (5) failed to obje ct to the jury char g e that expanded the the ory of04

- 08

- 00 72 0- CR

- 6- of guilt; and, (6) fa iled to object to improper jury argument by

the State. Skelton argues the
c umu lativ e e ff

e c t of the se e rr or s und e rm ine s th e re lia bil ity of the ve rd ic t. To establish ineff

ective a ssis t ance of c ounsel, a de fenda nt must prove by

a pre pondera

nce of evidence his trial counsel’s perfor mance was deficient and the deficient perf ormanc e pre

judiced him. Strickland v. W

ashington , 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 69 4 ( 19 84 ); Bo nev . S tate , 7 7 S. W. 3 d

8 2 8 , 8 3 3 ( T e x. Crim. Ap p . 2 0 0 2 )
. T o d e mo n s tr a te d e f ic ie n t p e r f

o r ma n c e , th e d e f

e n d an t m u s t s h o w c o u n s el’s perf ormanc e fell below a

n objective standa

rd of r easona

bleness. Tho mp so n v . S

tate , 9 S.W .3d 808, 81 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). We i nd ulg e a str on g pr e sumpt ion

that “ c ouns e l’ s c on du c t f e ll w ith in a wide rang e of r easona

ble re prese ntation.” Sa lin as v . S tate , 163 S.W .3d 734, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 0 5). To over come this presumption, the re cord must af firmatively

demonstrate the alleg ed ineffe ctiveness. Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 814. Fur thermore , to showhe wa s prejudice d by counsel’s defic ient perf

ormanc e, a defe ndant m ust “show a rea sonable proba

bility that, but for his counsel’ s
un pr of e ssi on a l e rr or s, the re su lt o f t he pr oc e e din g wo uld

have be e n d if

fe re nt. A r e a so na

ble probability

is one sufficient to undermine confidenc e in the out come.” Mi tc he ll v . S tate , 68 S.W .3d 640, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)(footnotes and c itations omitted). Fa ilure t o prove e ither def icient perf ormanc e or prejudice is f

atal to any

complaint of ineff

ective a ssistance. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 700. The standa

rd for revie wing trial counsel’ s perf ormanc e does not mea

n the ac cused is entitled to error less or per fec t co u nsel. Ex Pa rteW e lbo rn , 785 S.W .2d 391, 393 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The re cord on dire ct appe al will rare ly contain su ff

icient information to eva luate an ine ffe ctive assistance claim. Bone , 77 S.W .3d at 833. Her e, the r ecor d does not contain suf f ic ient information to demonstrate ine ffe ctive assistanc e of counsel. First, we have deter mined the jury was not pe rmitted to f ind he r g uilty of a theor

y not04

- 08

- 00 72 0- CR

- 7- alleg ed in the indictment, so there is no validity to Skelton’s claim of ineff ective a ssistance re lated to enlarg ement of the indictment. As to the other complaints, there was no motion for ne w t rial raisingthe claim of ine ffe ctive assistanc e and we have no explanation from trial counsel c oncer ning his strateg ies or act i o n s . Be cause trial counsel’ s actions ar e pre sumed within the proper rang e of
rea sonable a

nd profe ssional assistance a nd the undeve loped rec ord, Skelton did not me et her bur den of pr oo f t o a ff

ir mativ e ly de mon str a te de fi c ie nt p e rf or manc e by he r t ri a l c ouns e l. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.
Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice

DO NO T PU B L I SH