C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS PATRI CI A B OGGS HORAN , Ap pe lla nt,

v . THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

. § § § § § § No

. 08 -0 7- 00 22 2- CR

Appea l from the 346th DistrictCourt of El Paso County , Texas (TC# 20040D05142)

O P I N I O N Patricia B og g s Horan ( Appellant or H oran) was c onvicted of the ft of prope rty with a value of $1,500 or more , but less than $20,000. Hora n was sente nced to a

five-y ear suspended se ntence

. Ap pe lla nt w a s p la c e d o n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on fo r fi ve y e ars and or de re d to pa y $2 23 in c ourt

c os ts and $16,770 in re stitut ion. She now appea ls her convic tion. For the reasons below, we aff irm the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. I. F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND Hora n was c onvicted of steal i ng an ag g reg ated amount of $1,500 or more, but less than $2 0, 00 0 f

ro m A ng e la

Eb e rt , a B ri tish c iti zen

liv ingin H a mbu

rg , G e rm any . H or an b e c a me acqua inted with Ebert throug h Hora n’s husband, Robin Carlson. Hor an an d Ebert then be g an a te le ph on e fr ie nd sh ip i n 1 99 8. I n July 20 02 , H or an invit e d E be rt and he r d a ug hte r t o H or an’ s h ome in El Paso, Tex as. Eber

t and her daug hter c ame to El Paso on J uly 4, 2002. Ebert br oug ht $25,000 with her, whic h she planne d to place in a United States bank. Hor an

su g g e s t e d t h a t E b e rt o p e n an a c c o u n t a t t h e F o rt B l i s s F e d e r a l C r e d i t U n i o n ( F B F C U ) ( no w F ir st L ight F eder al C redit Union (F L FCU )). On J uly 8, 2002, the Carlsons took Ebert to F BF CU whereEbert then ope ned an acc ount w ith the $25,000. E bert g ave the bank Hor an’s home a ddress a s the

mailing addre ss f

or this new ac count. The ba nk sug g ested that Ebe rt divide the moneyinto five subacc ounts, which included a chec king acc ount, a savings account, a money -marke t acc ount, and two sh are c e rt if

ic a te s. Eb e rt

div ide d th e mon e y

a s f oll ow s: $ 15 ,0 00 int o th e mon e y -m ark e t a c c ount, $5 ,0 00 in e a c h o f the sh are c e rt if ic a te a c c ounts , and $4 63 in the c he c kin g a c c ount. Ap pr oximate ly

one we ek later , the bank se nt Ebert her PI N for the newly cre ated acc ount. Ebert testified that she g a ve Ho ra

n th e PI N i n o rd e r t o a c tiv a te the a c c ount and lat er allowe d h e r t o u se the a c c ount t o purcha se medicine for Ebe rt’s husband. Ebe rt testified that the onl y m ed i ci n e she r ece ived from Hora n was a spirin and ibuprofe n. Ebert a lso te s t i fi ed t h at she did not g ive Carlson or a ny of the Carl so n c hil dr e n th e PI

N t o th e a c c ount. Ebert a n d her da

ug hter took a trip to Mexico on J uly 25, 2002, and re turned to El Paso on J uly 30, 2002. Ebert and her daug hter then returne d to Ger many on Aug ust 10, 2002. Fr om J uly 25, 20 02 , thro ug h O c tob e r 9 , 2 00 2, there w e re se ve ra l mo ne y tr ans fe rs ma de fr om E be rt ’s F B F CU

acc ount to Horan’s a

nd Carlson’s F BF CU joint account. All of these tr ansfe rs wer e done ove r the telephone, usingthe cr edit union’s automated voice sy stem. Detec tive Br uce Campbell from the El Paso Poli ce D ep ar tment determined the amount transfe rre d from Ebe rt’s ac count to the HoranCarlson joint account totaled $16,770. Serg eant Stefa

n Happ f rom the El Paso Police Depa rtment testified that the tra nsfer s made

ov e r t he ph on e , b e tw e e n th e tw o a c c ounts , w e re c on sid e re d to be ma de on F or t B lis s mi lit ary

ba se beca use that i s wh er e al l of the ser vers f or F BF CU were located. H app we nt on to say that he

c on ta c te d th e Whit e -C oll a r U nit at th e Di str ic t A tto rn e y ’s of fi c e wh o in fo rm e d h im that if so me transac tions took pl ace at ATMs in Texas, then the State of Texas would have jurisdiction. After the transf ers we re ma de to the Hor an-Car lson joint acc ount, the money was re trieved at variousATMs. The ATMs used wer e located in E l Paso County , at Sunland Park Race Trac k and Casino,

and at Speaking Roc k Casino. F ro m June 30 , 2 00 5, un til De c e mbe r 1 5, 20 05 , H or an r e pr e se nte d h e rs e lf duri ng wh ic h ti me she filed se vera l motio n s . On De cember 15, 2005, Ke nneth Krohn w as appointed to re prese nt Hora n. On Octo b er 20, 2006, Mr. Krohn me ntioned that he wa s worrie d about Hora n’s mental stability . Krohn we nt on to state that Horan s u ff er ed from dementia, which she was taking

me dic a tio n f

or un til 20 01 . M r. Kr oh n a sk e d f or a c on tin ua nc e in o rd e r to get a p sy c hiatr ic evaluation, relating to the court that Hor an wa s often hy sterica l, and Krohn ha d just learned that Hora n suffe red f

rom a brain disease. The court de nied the continuanc e and note d that the trial cour t had per s o n a ll y

o b s e r v e d th e A p p e ll an t w h e ns h e r e p r e s e n te d h e r s e lf , s p o k e to c o u rt s ta f

f , f il ed letters, and reque sted transcr ipts. The court fur ther stated, w hile Appellant had be en diffic ult, she d i d n o th av e ap ro b l em co m m u n i ca t i n g. At a h ea ri n g o nOc t o b er 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , Ho ra nwe n tt h ro u gh direc t and cr oss-examination reg ardingher c ompetency . The c ourt schedule d the jury trial for Janu ary 19 , 2 00 7. On

Janu ary 12 , 2 00 7, Kr oh n f

ile d a Mo tio n to Ap po int Cy nth ia Riv e ra , M. D. to evaluate Hora

n and assist in her de fense . On J anuar y 12, 2007, the cour

t’s order direc ting Dr . Rivera to examine Horan and evaluate her c ompetency to stand trial was filed. A ppellant’s jury

trial beg an on J une 25, 2007. II. DI SCU SSIO N A p p e ll an t p r e s e n ts tw o is s u e s f o r r e v ie w . I nI s s u e N o . O n e , A p p e ll an t c o n te n d s th a t t he evidenc e is leg ally i n sufficie nt to establish that Appellant appropr iated at lea st $1,500 in the territoria l jurisdiction of Texas, an d t h at t h e evide nce is leg ally insufficient to establish that Appellant appr opriated at least $1,500 without the eff ective consent of Ang ela Ebe rt. I n I ssue No. Tw o, Ap pe lla

nt c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in fa ili ngto c on du c t a

c omp e te nc y

tr ia l.A. Legal Suf fi ciency of the Evidence To support a c riminal conviction, when the leg al sufficie ncy of the evidenc e is under r eview,

w e c o n s id e r a ll o f th e e v id e n c e in th e li g h t mo s t f a v o r a b le to th e verdic t. Rolle rso n v . S tat e , 227 S

. W

. 3 d 7 1 8 , 7 2 4 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g J ac k so n v. Vi rg ini a , 44 3 U. S. 30 7, 31 8- 19 , 99 S. Ct

. 27 81 , 2 78 8- 89 (1 97 9) ; Ho op e r v . S ta te , 214 S.W .3d 9, 13 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007)). B ased on the evidenc e, and r easona

ble infer ence s made from it, we evaluate whether a ra tional juror could have found beyond a re asonable doubt that all of the e ssential elements of the crime w ere met. Rollerson , 227 S.W .3d at 724. I n the State’s re ply to I ssue No. One , it contends that jurisdiction is not an element of the offe nse and there fore cannot be subject to a leg al-suff iciency revie w, as d ef

i n ed in Jack

son . Howeve r, the Jack

son standard is only a minimum lega l sufficienc y standard. W

ats on v . S tat e , 204 S.W .3d 404, 412 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006)

. Reg ardle ss of the g ener ally

adopted Jack

son standard, the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals has state d that the application of Jack son does not prec lude any other ty pe of revie w and does not pr event states from using hig her standa rds of re view. Clewis v. Sta te , 922 S.W .2d 126, 132 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Reviewing territoria l jur isdiction unde r a leg al

s u f f i c i e n c y s t an d ar d

d o e s n o ti nan y w ay f

a l l b e l o w t h e s t an d ar d

s e to u tb y Jack

son . I f a ny thi ng , it would be imposing a

highe r standar d of re view. Fur thermore , this Court has alrea dy revie wed ter

ritorial jurisdiction under the Jack son leg al sufficie ncy

standard in Torres

. Torres v. State, 141 S.W .3d 645, 652-54 (Tex .App.–El Paso 2004, pet. re f’d) . The Texas Court of Criminal Appe als has also revie wed territoria l jurisdiction under a Jack son standard in Vaughn

. Vaughn v. State, 607 S.W .2d 914, 919-20 (Tex.C ri m . Ap p . 1980). I n revie wing the leg al suffic iency of the evidence , the C ourt does not resolve any conflict of fac t or assig n cre dibilit y

to the wit nesses, a s that is a deter mination for the jury

to make. Adelmanv . S

tat e , 8 28 S.W. 2d

41 8, 42 1 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ); M a t s o n v . Sta te , 8 1 9 S.W .2d 839, 843 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991)

. Our duty is only to de termine if the finding s of the trier of fac t are rational by viewing all of the evidenc e admitted at trial in a light most favor able to the ve rdict. Adelman , 828 S.W .2d at 422. The trie r of f act is authori z ed to resolve c onflicts in the evidenc e, eva luate the

cre dibilit y

of witnesses, and deter

mine the weig ht of particula r evide nce. Torres, 141 S.W .3d at 652 (c i t i n g J o n es v . Sta te , 944 S.W .2d 642, 647 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996)). I t is also settled that “[j] urisdiction may

be esta blished by circ umstantial evidenc e.” Torres, 141 S.W .3d at 652 (c iting Vaughn , 607 S.W .2d at 920). The Court of Crimi nal Appeals has y et t o decide what spec ific burde n of proof is require d to prove te rritorial jurisdiction. Torres , 141 S.W .3d at 652-54. The majority of cour ts have he ld that t h e c o r r e c tb u r d e n

i s p r o o f b e yo n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , w h i l e t h e m i n o r i t y r e qu i r e s o n l y a p r e p o n d e r an c e o f th e e v id e n c e . Id . Re g ard le ss, we fi nd that th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly su ff ic ie nt t o establish territoria l jurisdiction in Tex as under either bur den of pr oof. Texas has terr itorial jurisdiction over an of fense if “e ither the c onduct or a result that is an element of

the offe nse occ urs inside this state.” T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1.04(a) (1)( Ver non 2003). Th e Court

of Cr imi na l App e a ls h e ld that th e langua g e “ that is an e le me nt o f t he of fe ns e ” a pp lie s to both “conduc t” and “ result.” Rodriguez v. State, 146 S.W .3d 674, 675-76 (Te x .Crim.App. 2004). I n T e xa s , a p e r s o n c o m m i t s t h e f t i f h e u n l a

w f u l l y a p p r o p r i a t e s p r o p e rt y w i t h t h e i n t e n t to deprive the owner

of the prope rty . T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 31.03(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). Appropriation of property is unlawful if it is without t he owne r’s e ffe ctive conse nt. T EX .P EN AL C ODE ANN . § 31.03(b)( 1). An owne r is a per son who has title to property , possession of the proper ty , whether

lawful or not, or

a g reat er ri gh t t o p ossession of the prope rty than the ac tor. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1. 07 (a )( 35 )( A) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ). A p e rs on

a c ts i nte nti on a lly , or w ithintent, with respec t to the nature of her conduct, or a result of her conduct, whe n it is her conscious objective or desire to eng ag e in the conduct or cause the r esult. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 6.03(a) (Ve rnon 2003). Hora n was convicted of theft throug h one scheme and continuing course of conduct. Texas has jurisdiction over the of fense if either the conduct or a re sult, that is an ele ment of the off ense,

occur s in Texas. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 1. 04 (a ). Whe n v ie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t he “ lig ht m os t favor ab le to th e v e r d ic t, ” th e r e ar e s e v e r a l p o in ts th a t c o u ld c o n v in c e a r a ti o n a l ju r o r b e y ond a

rea sonable doubt that Texas had ter ritorial jurisdiction over the c rime. The evidenc e pre sented at trial includes t h e following : (1) Hor an lived in El Paso County , Texas during the per iod of the alleg ed off

ense; (2) Hora

n spoke fre quently with E bert fr om her home phone ; (3) Hor an convinc ed Ebert to come and stay

with h er i n E l P aso; (4) H oran sug g ested that Ebe rt open a n acc ount at FB FCU whe re H oran ha d an ac count; (5) Ebe rt’s PI N and ba nk statements wer e mailed to Hor an’s

a d dr e s s i n E l P a s o ; an d

( 6 ) A T M s u s e d

b y H o r ant o a c c e s s t h e c a s h w e r e l o c a t e d i nE l P a s o C o u n t y. Wit h intent being one of the elements of the crime, there is suffic ient evidenc e to establish that the

e le me nt of int e nt c ou ld h a ve be e n f or me d in El Pa so County , T e xas. Mo re ov e r, se ve ra l c a sh wi thd ra wa ls o f t he tr ans fe rr e d mo ne y

oc c ur re d at AT Ms in El Pa so , T e xas. Th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly sufficie nt to convince a

rational juror that either the element of appropr iation, or t he element of intent to d e pr ive oc c ur

re d in El Pa so , T e xas. Ap pe lla nt f ur the r c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e is le g a lly ins uf fi c ie nt to pr ov e that the pr op e rt y

was a ppropriate d without the effe ctive conse nt of Ang ela Ebert. Effe ctive consent includes conse nt by a per s o n l ega l l y authorized to act for the owner . T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 31.01(3)( Ver non Supp. 2008). Consent is not eff ective if induced by dece ption or coer cion. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 31.01(3)( A).Ag ain, viewingthe evi dence in the light most favor able to the ve rdict, there is sufficient

evidenc e to convince a juror that the proper ty in question was appr opriated w i t h out the eff ective consent of A ng ela Ebe rt. The r eleva nt e vidence prese nted at trial includes the following : ( 1) Eber t’s testimony that she had g iven Hora n permission to use the money only for the pur chase of medicine for Ebe rt’s sick husband; (2) E b er t ’s t est imony that the only

medication she r ece ived from Hor an

was a spirin and ibuprofen; (3) Ebert’ s testimony that she never g ave H oran pe rmission to t ransf er money from her acc ount to Appellant’s ac count; (4) State’ s Ex hibits Two a nd Three showing that a lar g e portion of the money was taken out at Spea king Roc k Casino’s ATM machine and Sunland Pa r k Ca s in o ’ s ma c h in e ; ( 5 ) E b e rt’ s te s ti mo n y th a t o n c e c o n f r o n te d , H o r an p r o mi sed to pay the transfe rre d money

back; ( 6) Eber

t’s testimony

that she had not lea

rned that the money

was transfe rre d out until she spoke with a cre dit union repr esentative in Ma rch 2003; and (7 ) B ank

rec ords showing that Ebert’ s acc ount statements wer e sent to Hora n’s addr ess until April 2003. Be cause the evidenc e is leg ally sufficie nt to establish jurisdiction and appropriation without eff ective c onsent, I ssue No. One is overrule d.

B. Failure t o Condu ct a C om petency Trial I n h e r s e c on d is su e , App e lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr ed in fai li ng to c on du c t a competenc y

trial. L ater , in Appellant’s ar g ument she then states that the t rial court err ed by failing to conduct a c ompetency

inquiry as re quired by

the Tex as C ode of Crimi nal Proce dure A rticle 46.02. The rele vant law that applies in this case is Chapte r 46B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . ch.46B (Ve rnon 2006). Article 46.02 that Appellant cites wa s repe aled eff ective January

1, 2004. Act of May 14, 2003, 78th L eg ., R.S. ch. 35, § 15, 2003 Tex . Gen. L aws 57, 72. Whether Appe llant is contending that the trial cour t erre d in failingto conduct a c ompetency tr ia l, o r f a ile d to co nd uct a

n in fo rm a l in qu ir

y a s r e qu ir e d und e r A rt ic le 46 B .0 04 (c ), the iss ue isoverr

uled. T EX .C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 46B.004( c)( Ver non 2006). We hold that the trial cour t did not err in fa iling to co n d u ct a co m p etency trial and that a

n adequate informal inquiry was conducte d. The trial c ourt’s dec ision not t o hold a competency hear ing is re viewed unde r an a buse of discretion standa

rd. Mo or e v . S

tat e , 999 S.W. 2d 38 5, 39 3 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). Th e te st f or a bu se of dis c re tio n “ ‘i s n ot w he the r, in t he op ini on

of the re vie wi ngc ourt , th e fa c ts p re se nt a n a pp ro pr ia te

case for the t ri al co u rt ’s action; rather, it is a question of whe ther the tria l court ac ted without ref ere nce to a

ny g uiding r ules or princ iples, and the mer e fa ct that a trial court may decide a matter within its disc re t i o n ar y

authority differ ently

than an a ppellate c ourt does not demonstrate such an abuse.’ ” Howell v. State, 1 7 5 S

. W

. 3 d 7 8 6 , 7 9 2 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 5 )( qu o t i n g Ra nd on v . S tat e , 107 S.W .3d 646, 648 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.)). A per son is presumed compe tent to sta nd trial and will be deeme d competent to stand trial unless proved to be incompetent by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 46B .003(b)( Ver

non 2006). A de fenda n t i s incompetent to stand trial if he does not have sufficie n t p re s en t ability to consult with his l awy er w ith a rea sonable de g ree of rational

un de rs tand ing , o r h e la c ks a ratio na l a s w e ll a s f

a c tua l un de rs tand ingof

the pr oc e e din g s a g a ins t hi m. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P ROC .ANN . a rt . 4 6B .0 03 (a ). Ei the r p art y or the tr ia l c ourt

may su g g e st that a defe ndant is in co m p et en t . I f evide nce sug g esting that the def endant is incompete nt to stand trial

c o m e s t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u rt , i t s h a l l c o n d u c t an i n f o r m a l i n qu i r

y i n t o w h e the r t he re is

so me e vid e nc e fr om a

ny so ur c e tha

t w ou ld s up po rt

a fi nd ingthat th e de fe nd ant is in com pet ent to stand trial. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 46B .004. I f af ter a n informal inquiry

the trial cour

t deter mines that evidenc e exists t o support a finding of incompete ncy , it shall order a n examination by an expert to deter

mine whether

the defe ndant is competent to stand trial. T EX .C ODE C R IM . P R OC .I n A p p el l ant ’ s b ri ef , A p p el l ant ass ert s t hat t he P sy chi at ri c E val uat i o n repo rt i s no where t o be f o und

. T he 1 Stat e res p o nd ed by s up p l em ent i ng t he reco rd wit h i t s co p y of t he repo rt

. A p p el l ant wrote a l et t er ob ject i ng t o t he su p p le m e n ta tio n o n F e b ru a ry 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 . T h is C o u rt o v e rr u le d the o b je c tio n the sa m e d a y. ANN . art. 46B .005(a)

. He re , t h e t ri al cour

t first observe d the def

endant’ s capa

bility to not only

understand the proce eding s ag ainst her, but to repr esent herse lf during two pretria l c onfer ence s. The de fenda nt filed

sever al m otions on her own, and brought her own oral mot ion questioning the State’s jurisdiction on the matter. D espite the lac k of evidence sugg esting incompetenc y , the t rial court held a he aring

an d a ll o w e d d ir e c t an d c r o s s - e xa mi n a ti o n o f th e d e f e n d an t w h ic h w a s s p e c if ic a ll y ta rg eted a t deter mining the de fendan t ’s co m p etency to stand trial. L astly , the trial cour t ordere d that the de fe nd ant s ub mit

to a me nta l hea lth e xami natio n f or the purp os e of

de te rm ini nghe r c omp e te nc y to stand trial. The f

act that the tr ial court orde red a psy chiatric evaluation does not constitute evidenc e that the defendant is incompetent. Crisw ell v. State, 27 8 S.W. 3d 45 5, 45 9 (T e x.Ap p. –H ou sto n [14 th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). The Psy chiatric Evaluation re port dated January 14, 2007 and submitted to the court by the appointed psy chiatrist found Horan “c ompetent to stand trial.” There being no evidenc e 1 of incompete ncy

befor e the c ourt, it was not require d that a competency hear ing be held and thus the court did not err in fa iling to do so. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 46B .004. Appellant’s se cond issue is overrule d. III . C ON CL USI ON F or the fo rg oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J ustice J uly 1, 2009 B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.(Do Not Publish)