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

NO. 03-10-00045- CR

Nylondraleshan nette Williams, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 368 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 08- 1441 -K 277, H ONO RAB LE B URT CARNES, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Ny londralesha nnette Wil liams g uilty of forg ery and assessed punishment a t two y ear s in sta te jail a nd a $10,000 fine. See Tex. Pena l Code Ann. § 32.21 (West Supp. 2010). Appellant’s only contention on appea l is that the trial court er re d b y ad m i t ting evidenc e of e x trane ous offe nses. We overr ule this contention and af firm the convic tion. The evidenc e shows that on Au gu st 13, 2008, appellant, using the name Ny londra L og an, and her then-husband, Kimo L og an, opened chec king and saving s acc ounts at the Geor g etown office of Austin Telco Fe dera l Credit Union. On Aug ust 29, appellant returne d to the

cre dit union and presented a chec k for $1418.81 pa y able to her

and purpor

ting to be drawn on the business acc ount of Special Needs Home H ealth at Extraco B ank in Temple. A n employ ee of the

cre dit union testified that appellant led him to believe that t h i s wa s a pay roll chec k. Appellant deposited $200 in her chec king acc ount and took $1218.81 in ca sh. This chec k was, in fac t, aforg ery . Special Nee ds Home Hea lth is a fictitious name, as is the company addre ss on the fac e of

the chec k. The routing n umber on the chec k was actua lly for Southsi de Ba nk, and the acc ount number on the chec k belong ed to the acc ount maintained at that bank by the Ty ler unit of the Americ an Red Cross. A Red Cross r epre sentative testified that four chec ks draw n on that acc ount had bee n issued to appellant in J anuar y 2008. Appellant was indicted for having ma d e a n d p a s s e d th e f

o r g e d c h e c k d e s c r ib e d above. Over her objection, the State was permitted to show that she passed three other substantially identical forg ed chec ks pay able to her and purporting to be draw n on th e s am e n o n ex istent Ex trac o Ba nk

acc ount. On Aug ust 30, 2008, at the Round Rock office of Austin Telco, appellant cashe d a chec k for $1464.26. On the morning of September 2, at the Shoal Creek office of Austin Telco, appellant prese nted a chec k for $1699.14, deposited $65 , an d t o o k t he rest in cash. On the afte rnoon of September 2, at the Ba strop office of Aust i n Telco, appellant prese nted a chec k for $1593.08, deposited $800, and took the rest in cash. Appe l l an t arg ues that these other forg erie s had no rele vance bey ond char acte r confor mity and hence wer e inadmissible. Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). We revie w the trial court’s decision to admit this evidenc e for an abuse of discretion. McCarty v. State , 257 S.W .3d 238, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

The State arg ues, as it did at trial, that the other forg eries were rele vant and admissible to prove that appellant intentionally or knowing ly forg ed the chec k passed on Aug ust 29. As the State points out, appellant’ s trial defe nse was that she did not make the forg ed chec k, and she did not intentionally

or knowing ly

pass it. Defe nse counsel told the jury in his opening statement, “The chec k was [a] forg ery . I t is also true that Ny londra cashe d that chec k. But what is equally true

2is she didn’t know that it was fake

. She had no knowledg e that this chec k was fake beca use the truth is she was g iven that chec k by someone she loved and trusted.” Counsel w ent on to a ssert that the chec k had been forg ed by Celise Malone, who tricked appellant into passing it

. Anticipating Malone’s testi m ony , defe nse counsel char acte rized her as “a jailhouse snitch coming to make a deal.” Throug hout the trial, counsel made it a point to emphasize that appellant had used her own

1

name and had not attempted to hide her identity , there by imply ing that appellant had not been awa re of the for g ery . I ntent or g uilty knowledg e cannot be inferr ed from the mere pass ing of a forg ed instrument. Albrecht v. State , 486 S.W .2d 97, 102 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). Establishing intent or knowledg e in a forg ery case is so cruc ial that, “as a prac tical matter, evidenc e of extraneous offe nse is near ly alway s admissible.” Parks v. State , 746 S.W .2d 738, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). I n this

case , the evidenc e that appellant passed three other forg ed chec ks at three other Austin Telco office s within four day s of the char g ed offe nse, and that eac h of these other forg erie s was substantially identical to the forg ed chec k she passed on Aug us t 2 9 , tended to show that appellant had been eng ag ed in an ong oing forg ery scheme and thus tended to rebut appellant’ s claim that she had passed the first chec k without knowing that it was forg ed. Given appellant’ s defe nsive theory , the trial court

M al o n e testified she helped appellant make sever al forg ed chec ks, using materia ls they 1 purcha sed at an office supply store. She also admitted being with appellant when appellant cashe d t h e fi rs t chec k and sharing in the proce eds. At the time of the trial, Malone was servin g p ri s o n sentenc es for

theft and ta mpering with g overnme nt pr operty

. Malone had not bee n prosec uted for her role in the forg erie s, and she sai d t h at t h e State had ag ree d to let her plead g uilty to a misdemeanor in e x chang e for her te stimony

. 3did not abuse its discretion by admitting the other forg erie s as relevant to prove appellant’s guilty

knowledg e and intent. 2

Appellant’s issue is over

ruled, a nd the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Henson a nd Goodwin Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 2, 2011 Do Not Publish

Appellant does not contend that the r eleva nce of the extraneous off

enses wa s outweig hed by 2 the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice. See Tex. R. Evi d. 403. 4