### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00404-CR
Shawn Al

len Ri cheson, Ap pellant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DIS TRICT

NO. 50,272, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury found appel

la nt Shawn Allen Richeso n guilt y of t heft and asse ssed punishment at i nc arce rati on i n a state j ail f or si x m onths and a $1 0,000 f

i ne . SeeTe x. P enal Co de Ann. § 3 1. 03 ( a) , ( e) ( 4) ( A) ( We st Su pp . 20 01 ) . We will a ffir m.

In Ap ri l 1999, a ppel l an t, doing business as Web S er vices, or der ed t went y-five computer sy stem s f rom V i sion Com putersi n Tem pe, A rizona . The purchas e price was $1 5,3 75 , w i

th pa y men t to be ca sh on del iv ery. Visi on shi

pped the com pute r s y stem s th

e f ol l owi ng month . Up on re ce i pt, appe l l an

t gav e a che ck f

or the pu rchase pric e o n t he bac k o f which he wr ot e a r est rict ive endo rse ment pr oh i

b i ti n g p ay men t u nt il June 30 , six we eks late r. Vision ha d no t agr eed t o s uch a co ndit ion. W

he n th e c he ck wa s p res en

ted f or pa y men t, th ere we re n o f un dsi n th e acc oun t. Appe llantla

ter t endered a ch

eck for $1375 t o Vision, which r epr ese nt ed p ayment fo r t wo of t he sys tems. Thi s check was not negotiated. Appel la nt als o ret urned ten of t he co mput er s t o V ision, al thoughthere is

evi dence tha t he rem ove d m em ory ca rds an d other c om

ponen ts f rom them be f ore1 Stover w as Vi sion Com puter’ s of f i ce m anager. 2 Ap pe llant ’s po int o f er r o ris stated as a chal le nge to the legal

suf fi ci ency of the evi

dence, b ut he al so asserts that the evi den ce is f actual l y i ns uf f i ci en t. Beca use appe l l an t does n ot bri ng f orward any ar gu men t in

su pp o r t o f t his ass erti on, we do not reac

h i t. See Mart

inets v . State , 884 S.W.2d 185, 18 8-89 (Tex. A

pp.—A usti n 19 94, n o pet.) (op. on re

h’ g). 2 do ingso . Vis io n’s effo r t s t o co lle ct p ayme nt fo rt he o t he rco mpu t er sys t ems , o rt o r ec o ve rt he ir po ss es sio n, we r e u nsu cc es sfu l.

The in dictment al

le ged that appe l l an

t “un l aw f ul l y appr opri ate [d ] p rop er

ty , to wit: 25 com pute r s y stem s, of

the va l ueof $1, 500 or mor e but less t han $2 0, 000 wit h t he inte nt t o d epr ive t he owne r, An thony Stover, of

sai d property .” 1 Th e di stri ct c ourt ’s jur y charg e t ra cke d t he i n di ctm en t, requiri ng the j ury to fi

nd be yond a reas onabl e do ub t t ha t ap pe llant un law fully appropriatedt we nt y-fiv e c o mpu t er sys t ems in or der t o c onvict . Ap pellant co nt ends t hat beca use he tendered payment fo rt wo co mpu t er s a nd r et ur ne d s ev er al o t he r s, t he ev ide nc e is leg ally insufficient to s ust ain a co nvictio n for t heft of t went y-five co mput er syst ems as a lleged in t he indict ment a nd in corpo rated into the jury

charge. 2 In es se n ce , i t is app ellant’ s co nt ent ion t hat a fat al varianc e exist s bet wee n t he allegat ions in

the in dic tment an d the pr oof at tri al . The sufficiency of t he evide nce t o s ust ain a crim in al co nvictio n is measur ed by t he element s o f the off ense as defi ned in a hy pot hetic al ly

correct j ury charge f or the ca se. Malik v. State , 95 3 S . W. 2d 23 4, 24 0 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1997 ). The court of cr iminal ap pe als r ec ent ly exp laine d t he a pp licat io n o f Malik in cases of al le ged variances b etween t he p lea ding and t he p ro o f: [W]e hold that whe

n f aced wi th a suf fi ci ency of the ev

i denc e claim based upo n a variance bet we en t he ind ict ment and t he p ro o f, only a “m aterial ” variance wil l ren der3 Be ca us e w e c o nc lud e t ha t t he alle ge d v ar ian ce is im ma terial , we do not decide i

f the ev ide nce does or do es no t sup po rt a findingt hat app ellant unl awful ly appro priated all

twent y-f iv e computer s. 3 t he ev ide nc e in su fficie nt . T hu s, t he hyp o t he t ica lly cor re ct c h arge

wi l l tak e i n to con si de rati on t he fat al varianc e do ct rine fo rmer ly expres sed by thi s Court

and today reaff irm ed. Al le gations gi

vi ng ri se to im

ma terial variances m

ay be di sregarded

in the hyp o t he t ica lly

corr ect charge, but allegations givi ng rise to material v

ariances m

ust be i ncl uded. Gollihar v. State , 46 S.W.3d 243, 257 (Tex. Crim . App. 2001) (f ootnote omi

tted). The

courtadded: A variance b etween the wordin g of an indict ment a nd t he evi

dence prese

nted at tr ia

l is fat al only if “i

t is mate rial and pr ejudice s [t he de fend ant ’s ] sub stan tia l ri ghts .” Wh en re v i ewi n g suc h a v ari an ce , w e m ust deter m i n e w h eth er th e i ndi ct me

nt, as wr itt en, in

form ed the defe ndan t o f the ch arge ag ai n st h i m suf f i ci en tl y to al l ow h i m to prepa re an adeq uate de f en se a t trial , and wh et he rpr o se cu t io n u nd er t he de ficie nt ly dr aft ed indict ment w ou ld subjec t t he de fendant t o t he risk of bei ng prosecuted later for the sam

e crim e. Id . (quot in

g United States v. Sprick

, 233 F .3d 845 , 853 (5 th Ci r. 2000 )). The i n di ctm en t i n th i s c au se

i n f orm ed appe l l an t t h at he wa s ac cus ed o f ste aling c omp uters hav in g a val ue of at least $1500 but less than $20,000 f

rom An thony Stover . There i s not hingi n th e r ec ord

to i n di ca te th at th e pre cise nu mber o f co mput er s at issue w as c ru cial to t he defen se. The re is no d ange r t hat t he allege d var iance might give r ise t o a not her pr os ecu t ion fo r t he sa me cr ime. We co nc lud e t ha t t he alle ge d v ar ian ce is imma t er ial a nd sho uld be dis r eg ar de d in det er mini ng t he su ffic ien cy o f t he ev id en ce un de ra h yp o t he t ic all y correct jury

charge. Because appellant’s chal

le nge to the legal

suf fi ci ency of th e ev i den ce

re sts solel y on thi s i mm aterial variance, i t i s wi th out m eri t. 3 Point of error eigh

t is overruled.4 Appellant’s f

i rs t poi n t of er ror i s th at th e d i str i ct c ou rt erred “when i

t denie d Appellant’s Mot i on

i n Li m i n e to ex cl ud e r ef er en ce to extraneous cr imes or miscond uct .” Appe llant f il ed a m ot ion i n l im in e aski ng that the Stat e be prohi bi ted from off

erin g evi dence o f ex traneou s matters withoutfi

rst obt aini ng a ruling f

ro m the cou rt out side the jury’s pr es en ce on th e adm i ss i b i l i ty of the eviden

ce. This m

ot ion wa s gr ant ed. Dur ing t he t est imony of t he po lice officer who in vestigated thi

s c as e, th e p ros ecutor

appro ach ed

th e b en ch an d tol d th e c our t th at h e i n ten de d to que sti on the of f i cer ab out c erta

i n e xtr an eou s of f en se s f or th e p urp ose

of showi ng appel la nt’s m ot iv e, i n ten t, and des i gn. SeeTex . R. Evi d. 404( b) (e vi den ce of other cr i mes, w rongs , or acts). The

court stated, “ I’m goi ng to deny

the . . . motion

i n l i m i ne . . . for the purpose of consi derin g the evi dence . . . .” Thi s is th

e ru l i ng of wh i ch appe l l an t now compl ai ns. The prosecutor t hen

asked the off

ic er t he que sti ons he prop ose d to a sk

i n f ron t of th e j ur y , a f ter wh i ch de f ense cou n se l told th e c our t, “Your hon or, if that’ s the ex tent of his testi mony . . . we have

no obje ction.” The j ury was returned an d th e te sti mon y wa s a dd uc ed wi th out ob j ec ti on b y appe l l an t. A rul i ng on a m otion i n l i m i ne does n ot preserv e error. Harnet

t v. State , 38 S.W.3d 650, 655 (T ex. App. —Aus t in 200 0, pet . r ef’d) . Ap p ell ant vo iced no o bjection to the o ff icer’s t es t imo ny. SeeTex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Tex. R. Evi d. 103(a) (co ntemporaneousobj ection rul e). In his arg um en t i n s upp ort of thi s p oi nt of er ro r, app ellant do es no t re fer u s t o a ny par t icular t est imony he conten ds was i

mproperl y a dmi tt ed. Point of error one presents nothin g for review and i s overruled. In

poi nts of error t wo and three, appell ant contends the court erro neousl y pe rmi tt ed t wo wit ne ss es t o t es t ify t o ex t r an eo us t r an sa ct io ns in wh ich t he y so ld goods t o appell

ant for whi

ch5

he r efu se d t o pa y aft er de liv er y. I n p o in t o f er r o rfo ur , ap pe llant co nt en ds t he co ur t er r o ne o us ly permi tt ed the State to cross-ex

am i ne hi m ab out other ex

trane ous transactions. A ppel la nt argues under each point that t he testimony was irrelev

ant, but he does not suppor t t hese ass ertions wi th per t inent argum

en t. SeeTex. R. App. P. 38.1(h) (app ellant’ s br i ef m us t con tai n a rgu men t f or co nt ent ions made) . Ap pellant also ur ges t hat t he ext ra neo us t ra nsac t ions were too remote. SeeTe x. Pen. Code Ann . § 31.03(c)(1) (West Supp. 2001) (evi dence of recent si mi la rt ra nsac t ions ad miss ible to sh ow k now l edgeor i nte nt) . A ppe l l an t did n ot make th

i s obj ection to the di

stri ct court. SeeTe x. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1). Fi

nal ly , appell ant contends thatone of the extraneous m is conduct witness es was estopp ed from

testify in g under the terms of

a settlem

ent agreem

ent he si gned to conclude l i ti ga ti on wit h app ellant growi

ng out of the tran sacti on i n q ue sti on. On ceag ai n, thi s c onte nti on was not presented to the dis

trict court . Points of error two , three, and four are overrule d. Bef ore the two extr aneous mi

sconduct witnes ses testif

ie d, the distri ct court in

structed t he jur y t o co nsid er t he ir t es t imo ny o nly t o de t er mine a pp ella nt ’s int en t an d mo tiv e. S eeTex. R. Evi d. 105 (a) (lim

iting instru ct ion); see also Rankin v. State , 974 S.W.2d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim . App. 1996) (limi

t ing instr uct ion sho uld be gi ve n a t fi rst opportuni

ty). T he courtincluded a simil

ar lim iting i ns tructi on in it s c ha r ge t o t he jur y. I n p o int s o f er r o rfive an d s ix, ap pe llant co nt en ds t he limi t ing instr uct ions werede f

ec ti v e b ec au se

th ey re f er re d to “ex traneous offen

ses” rather

than to “extraneous trans actions,”

an d b ec au se th ey di d n ot requi re t hat t he ext ra neo us t ra nsac t ions be “rec ent ” and “s i m i l ar.”Appel

la nt did n ot obje ct to the li

mi ting i nstructions gi

ven at t he t ime the witne sses testif ie d, t her eby wai vi ng a ny error. SeeT ex . R. Ap p. P. 33 . 1( a) ( 1) . He als o did no t o bje ct t o t he li mit in g i ns tructi on contai ne d i n the j ury ch arge. See Po

sey v. St ate , 966 S.W.2d 57, 61 (Tex. Crim . App.6

1998) (g en

er al ru l es of pr oce du ra l de f aul t apply to jury ch

arge err or; o rdinari

ly , defendant must obje ct to charge b efore he m ay compl ai n on appeal

). Even if we a ssum

e that the jury

char ge was fun da men t ally

erroneous, appellant does not suggest how he was egregiously har med by t he instr uct ions gi

ven. See Almanz

a v. State , 686 S.W.2d157 , 1 71 ( Te x. Cri m . A pp. 198 5) ( op. on reh’g) (reve

rs al f or f un da men tal err oro nly i f egregi ous harm

resu l ts). Poi nts of error f i ve and si x a re overruled. Appe llantdid m ake o ne o bje ct io n t o t he jur y cha r ge , an d it i s th e s ub j ec t of h i s s ev en th po intof e rror. A ppel la nt objec ted to the defi

ni tion of “ eff

ective consent” i

nsof ar as i t stat ed that co nsent i s n

ot effect iveif “i

nduc ed by de cep t ion o r c oe rc ion. ” T ex. Pena l Cod e Ann. § 31 .0 1( 3) (A) (West Supp. 2001). Appell ant urges that there was no evi dence that

the complai

ni ng witness

was in duced to shi p the computers to appellant by a fal se i mpres si on of law or fact created b y appe l l an t. Seeid . § 31.01 (1) (de f

i ni ng “ dece pti on”). A

ppel l an t conten ds that the del

i very of t he com

puters co uld not have be en o bt ained by de cep t ion bec aus e t he worthl ess ch eck was g i

ven af ter they were deliv ered. The evi den

ce shows that b ef ore sel l i ng th e com putersto appel

l an t, Vi si onasked app ellant fo rcr ed it r efe r en ce s. T he info r mat io n p r o vid ed t o Vis io n by a pp ella nt included a bank acc ou nt in w hic h a pp ella nt ke pt su bst an t ial f un ds. W hen the com

puterswere

del i vered, h owev er, app ellant wr ot e t he pa yment che ck o n an ac co unt in anot her bank in which t her e we re no fu nds. The evi dence also s h ows th at a ppel la nt di d no t inform Visio n t hat , a s he a ckno wledg ed a t t rial, he
r o ut ine ly place d r est rict iveendo rse ments on p ayment c heck s by which he so ught t o d elay payment and effect ively f

or ce t he se ller t o e xt end him cr edit . T his evidenc e su ppo rt s a finding t hat app ellant7

cr ea t ed a fa lse impr es sio n o f fac t t ha t wa s lik ely t o a ffect Vision’s judg ment in t he transaction. No error is shown. Poi

nt of error seven is overruled. The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Lee Yeakel, Justice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: August 30, 2001 Do No t Publis

h