### NUM BER 13-09- 0005 9-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
BEL EN GA RZA , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 10 5t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of K leb erg Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d G arza Memoran du m Op inio n by C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appel lan t, Bel en Ga rza, w as charg ed by i ndi ctmentw it h tw enty -t hr ee c ounts of
c r e d i t c a rd a b u s e , a s t a t e - j a il felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 32. 31( b) (1 )( A) , ( d) (V er non Su pp. 2009)

. A jur y found Gar

z a g uil ty of al l count s, and the tr ial cour t as ses sed puni shmentat tw o y ears’ confine ment in a sta te jai l for each countw it h the se ntenc es to2

ru n c oncur re ntl y . The tr ial co urt s ubseq uentl y su spend ed th e s entenc e, pla ced Gar z a on commun i t y s u p e r

v i s i o n fo r t h r e e y e a rs , a n d o rd e r e d h e r t o p a y $ 3 4 5 i n c o u rt c o sts and restitut ion in the amo untof $3,8 66. 40. By

tw o issues, Garza argues tha t the ev iden ce is: (1 ) leg all y

i nsuffici ent t o est abl is h that Thomas Tri g o w as the hol der of the c re ditca rd ; and ( 2 ) l e g a l l y a n d fa c t u a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n tt o p ro v e t h a tG a rz a c o m m i t t e d c r e d i tc a rd a b u s e . W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND T his dispu te perta ins to the a lleged una uth oriz ed u sage of a com pan y

credit card by Gar z a. On M ay

22, 2009, a Kl eberg C ounty g ra nd j ur

y ch arg ed Ga rz a w it h tw enty -t hr ee count s o f abuse o f a “W ri g ht E x pr ess C re ditC ard #X XXX XXXXX XXXX

0063" w it h the int ent t o f ra udul entl y

der iv e a b enefit and w it hout the c onsen t of the cardhol der , Thomas Trigo. T h e i ndi ctmentfurth er prov ide d tha t t he i nci dents of credi t c ard abus e transpi re d
on v ar iou s d ates betw een Se ptember 21, 2007 an d Oc tober 22, 2007. Pr ior to tr ial , on Jul y

31, 2008, Gar

z a fil ed a firs t amende d motion t o q uash the indictm ent , alleging tha t it lacked suf f icient spe cif icity

to charge her w ith sep arate of fense s. She al so all eg ed th at t he i ndi ctmentfail ed to state t he appropr iat e c ri minal mental st ate and t o g iv e not ic e about“ the n ame, add re ss , or othe r ide nti fyi ng i nformati on w here the all eg ed w ro ng doi ng oc cur re d .

. . .” After a he ar ing , t he tr ial co urt den ied Gar z a’s moti on to q uash. T h e ju ry t ri a l i n t h is m a t t e r c o m m e n c e d o n De c e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 8

. T h e S t a t e ca ll e d two
w it ness es— Ly dia C antu and M anuel Thomas Tr ig o ( “Thomas ”) —to tes ti fy , and Gar z a, Joann a Perale s, and M ar is ol Lopeztes ti fied on behal f of the defense.3

A . Cantu’s Testimony Can tu, ow ner

of Mi d Val ley

EM S, tes ti fied that Thomas w or ked for th e c ompany as a direct or

and that his duti es inc lud ed “ ru nni ng the day -t o- day operati ons of the bus ine ss .” Cantu note d tha t the c o m p a n y h ad a n acco unt ing depa rtme nt th at ha ndle d all busine ss a c c o u n t s , i n c lu d in g a c c o u n t s r e c e iva b le , a n d t h a tW ri gh tE xp re s s , a c re d itca rd co m p a n y, is sued company

credi t c ards to he r and Thomas. Thes e c ards w er e us ed to fil l the company ’s ambul ances w it h di esel fuel. On cross-examina tion, Cantu ad m it ted thatshe w as no t knowledgeable abo ut all of t he “d ay -t o- day operati ons” of t he busi ness , but she re cal led thatthe company ow ned approx imat ely

fifteen ambul ances . Can tu s tated thatsh e and Thomas w er e the
cardhol ders of t he credi t cards. Later , defense couns el q uest ion ed Can tu abou t the company ’s ar

ti cl es of inc or porati on, a nd C antu admit ted t hat t he c or porati on had been dissolved and w as now operatin g as a sole p roprieto rship. Cantu also testif ied th at ea ch ambula nce has a c or re spond ing credi t c ard, a n d e ach credi t c ard i s a ss ig ned a PIN
num ber. B. Thomas’s Testimony Thomas, the direct or of operati ons for Mi d Val ley EM S, tes ti fied that he ra n “a ll the sta ti ons from M cAl len , F alfur ri as, H oust on[,] and sur ro undi ng ar eas. ” Thomas noted that the h eadq uar

ters for M id Val ley

EM S i s i n M cAl len , Tex as. Thomas re cal led rev ie w ing Ga rza’ s e m p lo yme n t a p p lic a ti o n an d in te rvie wing Ga rza a n d he r f rie n d an d par tner , M ar is ol Lopez , for posi ti ons w it h the co mpany . Thomas te sti fied th at t he Mid V a lle y EM S fleet
cons is ted o f tw elv e or thi rt een ambula nces . Thomas fur ther tes ti fied th at, w hen G arz a w asT r ig o la te r te s tif ie d th a t, “ [y] o u c a n ’t p u t u n le a d e d f u e l in a n a m b u la n c e . I fyo u p u t u n le a d e d f u e l in 1 a n a m b u l a n c e , y o u ’ l l b u rn th e e n g i n e .” 4 firs t hi re d, he g av e her

a c ompany

credi t c ard and a PIN number that w as only

to be us ed to fil l up her

as si g ned ambul ance w it h fuel. I n fact, Thomas s tated that : Som e me dics get fu el cards, no t all of them . I have t wo supe rv isors, m ys e lf [ , ] a n d a co u p le o f o t h e r m a n a ge m e n tt h a t h a s [ s ic ] f u e l ca rd s . I h a ve a c oupl e oth er

medi cs thatal so hav e them becau se they ’re out in the fie ld. And B ele n Gar

z a w as one of the ones that I i ss ued a fuel c ard to. T hom as insisted thathe told Garz a t h a t t h e a m bula nces were to be f illed up on ly with d ie se l f u e l e ven th o u gh n o n e of th e se in st ru ct io n s were in w rit in g. Thomas al so: ( 1) 1 ide nti fied th e l astfour

di g it s o f the c re ditca rd thatGar z a w as is sued as bei ng 0063; ( 2) sta ted that all of

the Mi d Vall ey

EMS credi t cards that w er e iss ued beg an w it h the foll ow ing
num bers: “044 4 XX

XX X XX XX "; an d (3) note d tha t Garza nev er returne d to him the cred it
card tha t w as is sued to her

. Thomas a ls o tes ti fied th at he i nst ru cte d Gar z a to tr y to fill up the a mbulan ce at t he St ri pes g as sta ti on l ocat ed atH ig hw ay s 2 81 and 285 i n F alfur ri as as much a s p oss ibl e. The r eason for t his w as becau se Val ero, t he parent c ompany of the Str ipe s g as sta ti on, k eeps g ood records of the g as transac ti ons. R eg ard in g t h e PIN
nu mb er , Tho ma s t ol d Ga rz a no t to “ g i v e an y bo dy y ou r [ PI N ] nu mb er” and tha t i f prob l em s arose, sh e w as to c all Thomas t o g et au thor iz ati on to ac t. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Thomas ack now led g ed th at he w a s n ot ab le to prov ide
ev ide nce of Garz a’s ti me cards becau se thos e r e co rd s w er e l ocat ed i n the M cAl len headq uar

ters a nd w er e des troy ed dur ing H ur ri cane Dol ly

. How ev er , Thomas sta ted t hat he made the s chedu les for t he medi cs and post ed t h e m i n the v ar iou s o ff ic es. W hen pr esent ed w it h transac ti on l og s a ss oci ated w it h the credi t c ard tha t w as all eg edl y i ss ued to G arz a tha t w er e produc ed bythe fraud di v is ion of W ri g ht E x pr ess , Thomas noted thatT hom as no t ed t hat a W r i ght Expr ess r epr esent at i v e i n t he f r aud di v i si on n ot i f i ed h i m t hat G ar z a “ was 2 u s i n g e x c e s s i v e fu e l o n h e r c a rd a n d o n h e r [P IN ] n u m b e r . . . .” 5 the maj or ity

of the e ntr ies on t he document s ide nti fied “B

. Gar z a,” w hom Thomas i denti fied as the def end ant , as the purcha ser. Th om as also adm itted thatGarz a w as a good m edic and t hat h er

empl oy ment re cord did not cont ain any compl ain ts. He als o ac know led g ed that he g av e Gar

z a the credi t c ard bec ause he tr ust ed her and that not a ll dr iv ers for the
com pan y

w ere granted perm ission to use the cred it cards. O n re -d ir e c te xa m in a t io n , T h o m a s re c o u n t e d n u m e ro u s in s t a n c e s in wh ic h G a rza all eg edl y us ed th e c re ditca rd as si g ned t o her to purchas e l arg e q uanti ti es of unlead ed fuel “a co upl e of

t im e s a d a y” from Se ptember 21, 2007 t o N ov ember 2, 2007. Among the
ma ny ent ries on the W rig ht Express docu me nts w ere un lead ed f uel purch ases p urpo rtedly made by Gar z a on sev eral Su n d a ys dur ing the re lev ant t ime per iod , w hic h, as Thomas noted, w er e s uspi ci ous becau se Mi d Val ley EM S is cl osed on Sunday s. Thomas a dmit ted that Gar z a and Lopezdrov e l ong di sta nces b e tween Sa n D ieg o, Tex as, and Rob sto w n, Tex as, to pic k u p c li ents ; how ev er , mos t of the entr ies reflect ed th at “ B. G arz a” purchas ed unle ade d g a s o li n e at Sh ell, Exx onMo bil, and Diamon d gas station s in Kingsv ille, Te x as, a l ocat ion thatw as not s er v ic ed by Gar z a or her par

tner

. M or eov er , many

of the p ur chas es
w ere m ade during times in w hich T hom as testif ied that Garz a w as no t sched uled to w ork. Thomas te sti fied th at t he to tal of unautho ri z ed c harg es made on the credi t card i ss ued t o Garza amo unt ed to in e x cess of $ 6,0 00, and thathe foun d ou t abo ut th e pu rported credit
card abus e upon re v iew ing l arg e i ncreases i n t h e a mount ow ed to W ri g ht E x pr ess for unle ade d f uel on the credit-card st ate me nts. W hen as ked to de sc ri be th e frontof the 2 credit card, w hich he w as un able to prod uce at trial, Th om as recalled thatthe cred it card had a number

on i t and sa id thatit w as “i ss ued from Mi d Val ley EM S.” I n addi ti on, Thomas6

testif ied th at, in ord er to pu rchase g asoline using the com pan y credit card, u s e rs w ere re q uired to i nput the desi g nated PIN number and the odometer readi ng on t he ambul ance, and once comp leted , the users w ere issued a receipt, wh ic h wa s t o b e turne d in to Mid Val ley EM S s uper

v is ors. Late r, Thomas s peci ficall y tes ti fied th at he w as the c ardhol der of the cred it card tha t w as issued to Garza. Fi nally, Tho ma s asserted thatGa rza “didn’t pick up a [gas] card ” w hen she repo rted f o r wo rk “’cause [sic] she ha d it w ith he r at all ti mes.” T he St ate rested a t the conclusio n of Th om as’s testim ony. Garz a sub sequen tly
mov ed for a di re cte d v erdic t, w hic h the tr ial co urt den ied

. C. Pera les ’s Tes timony P e r a l e s , a d i s p a t c h e r w h o w o r k e d fo r M i d V a l l e y E M S fo r a m o n t h a n d a h a l f, tes ti fied th at s he w as famili ar w it h the operati on of the Fal furr ias off ic e, w here Gar z a w as sta ti oned. Perale s d eni ed ev er se ein g Thomas i n t h e F a lf ur ri as off ic e and noted that Mi chael Tri g o, Thomas ’s brother , w as the man a gero f t he F alfur ri as off ic e. Perale s tes ti fied th at t he ambul ance dr iv ers d id not “ si g n off for t he c ard” and that there w as not a d a il y r e c o rd m a d e o f

wh ic h d ri ve r u s e d wh ic h cr e d itca rd

. Pe ra le s a ls o d e n ie d t h a tG a rza
w as ever i ssued a credit card by M id Valley EMS. Perales reme mb ered thatthere were four ambul ances as si g ned t o the F alfur ri as off ic e. On cross -e x aminat ion , Pe ra les admi tted that she had a v er bal al tercat ion w it h one of the Tr ig os re g ardin g a pa rt ial pay ment for ser v ic es she re ndered. Pe ra les furth er tes ti fied th at t he medics w oul d f il l the ambulanc es up w it h fuel at t he end of thei r shi fts and that the g as cards w er e tur ned i n at the e nd of the day

. Perale s ack now led g ed that she did not hav e ac ces s t o the PIN numbers a ll eg edl y i ss ued t o the medi cs .R a th e r th a n i n fo rm M i d V a l l e y E M S th a t s h e w a s q u i tti n g , L o p e z s i m p l y s to p p e d “g o i n g to w o rk .” 3 7 D. Lopez’s Tes timony Lopez , a li cen s e d emerg ency medi cal tec hni ci an and ro ommate of Gar z a’s , t est ified that she and Garz a w or ked as partners a t M id Val ley EM S. Lopezdeni ed ev er w or ki ng for Thomas and sta ted that her immediat e super

v is or w as Mi chael

. Lopeznote d tha t M ic hael “w as in charg e of the Fal furr ias area” and that no g as cards ev er l eft the F alfur ri as off ic e. Lopezas ser

ted t h a t neith er

sh e nor Gar z a w er e as si g ned a g as card. Lopezfurth er ass erted t hat: W e’d g o to the sta ti ons, the trail er , and in the trail er it ’s cabi nets and cabi nets

. It has—the c abi net i s a roll ing thi ng . The key s a re hung

. The g as c ards are th ere. Y ou g et th e k ey s . On th e ot he r s i de , th ey h ad l i k e ou r

j um p bag and our

AED s a nd w e’d hav e to unl ock them and g et t hose out, put t he keys back, g et th e am bula nce keys, g et th e f uel card, and then g o an d che ck our tr uck s o ut ou tsi de. L o p e z a ls o tes ti fied th at s he and Gar z a often had “ lon g , l ong di sta nce transfers” that
re qu ir e d t h e m t o “r e f il l d u ri n g t h e d a y. ” L o p e z st a t e d t h a tsh e a n d G a rza d id n o th a ve pati ents i n Ki ng sv il le and t hat t hey w oul d fil l up th e ambula nce at the Str ipe s g as sta ti on in Falf urrias. Lope zf urthe r sta ted t hatsh e quit working a t Mid V alley EMS beca use Mid Va lle y E MS su per

v is ors a ll eg edl y

as ked her

to falsi fy document ati on for Me dic ar e and Me dic aid

. 3 On cross-examina tion, Lop ez testif ied th at all of the m edics kne w

the PI N num bers to t he g as card and had ac ces s t o the g as cards. Lopezal so tes ti fied th at, on oc cas ion , all of the med ics w ould “g o to the Falf urrias statio n and w e’d g et in line, a ll the am bula nces. And i f w e w er e al re ady pumpi n g ga s, t h e—w e’d l eav e and the o ther g uy s w il l jus t foll ow and fil l up th eir

ambul ances .”8

L a t e r, L o p e z s t a t e d t h a t“t h e gu ys [ Mi d V a ll e y E MS su p e rvi s o rs ] f ro m t h e V a ll e y”
w oul d dr iv e “L inc oln cars” from McAl len to Fal furr ias ev er y day and w oul d use th e g as cards to f uel up the vehicles. How ever, Lope zadm itted thatthe Mid Valley EMS super v is ors d ri v ing from t he M cAl len to Fal furr ias w oul d not dr iv e throug h Ki ng sv il le. E. Garza ’s Tes timony Gar z a s tated thatsh e wo rke d as an i nter mediat e EM T for M id Val ley EM S from August 20 07 to Octob er 200 7. Garza denied ev er a busin g a credit card belon ging to Mid Valley EMS. Garza adm itted tha t she, Lop ez, and Pe rales all have g riev ance s against Mid Val ley EM S, y et Gar

z a noted that nei ther

Lopeznor

Perale s w oul d per

jure the msel v es for Garza’s benef it. Garz a ackn owl edged t hatshe typically w orked Monda y s, W edn esda y s, and F ri day s, but t hat M ic hael w oul d cal l the medi cs and tel l them “ Tomorrow mor nin g , be there at X

ti me.” G arz a deni ed ev er se ein g a s chedule post ed i n the F alfur ri as off ic e. Gar z a al so deni ed ev er

bei ng iss ued a credi t card and a PI N number

. Gar z a the n not ed that: W hen w e got hired w ith Mid Valley, w ith Michael, th e f irst day he too k us in his personal v ehi cl e to the v all ey to pic k up an extra ambulanc e bec ause he d i d n ’ th a v e e n o u g h a t t h e F a l f u r r i a s s t a t i o n fo r u s t o w o r k t h e n e xt d a y . We wen t w it h h im

. He gave u s a ca rd , two u n ifo rm sh irt s an d sa id [, ] “O ka y, go back

. Leav e thi s c ard at the s tati on. If y ou need i t i n the mor nin g t o fil l up or w hatev er , us e i t.” Accordin g to Ga rza, the g as cards “w ere kep t in a cabin et w ith the turnstile w ith no lock, no anythi ng on i t.” G arz a deni ed th at Thomas w as her bos s a nd, i nst ead, tes ti f ie d that Mi chael w as h e r im m edi ate s uper v is or . Gar

z a next recoun ted a v er bal al tercat ion w it h Thomas and all eg ed th at M id Val ley EM S s uper

v is ors “ w anted us to fals ify doc umentati on about pati ents .”9

On cross-examina tion, Garz a asse rted that M id Valley EMS supe rv isors used th eir “L inc oln ca rs ” to dr iv e from M cAl len to Ki ng sv il le to pic k up pati ents

. Gar z a admit ted t hat she had k now n Perale s s inc e 2004, w hen t hey w or ked tog ether

at Gol d Star EM S. She also no ted thatPerales w as the one w ho to ld her tha t the re w as a w arrant o ut for her arrest
re g ardin g this of

fense. Gar

z a denied hav ing a c re ditca rd or a de bitca rd and tes ti fied th at she pai d f o r h e r g as w it h c ash. G arz a q uitw or ki ng as a medi c for M id Val ley

EM S on Oct ober 31, 2007, w hen s he s topped re por ti ng to w or k. On re -d irect ex aminat ion , Gar z a s tated thatthe g as card tha t s he had used on her last shif t w ith Mid Valley EMS had alread y bee n turne d in, an d she corroborat ed L ope z ’s te s ti mo ny

t ha t s ev eral a mb ul an c es w ou l d l i ne u p att he Fa l fur r i as st at i on and us e th e s am e g as card to fill up. At t he c oncl usi on of the tr ial , the jur y found Gar

z a g uil ty of all tw enty -t hr ee c ounts of credi t c ard abus e. Beca use she had w aiv ed her r ig ht t o hav e the j ur

y i mpose a sent ence, Gar

z a w as sent enced by

the tr ial co urt. The tr ial co urt i mposed a tw o- y ear sent ence for eac h c ount w it h the se ntenc es to r un c oncur re ntl y , s uspen ded the s entenc e, and placed Garz a on comm unity supervisi o n f or three y ears. In ad dition , the trial court
ordered Ga rz a to pay

$345 i n c our

t c ost s a nd rest it uti on i n the amount of $3,866.4 0. On Dec ember

12, 2008, Gar

z a filed a moti on for new tr ial , w hic h w as lat er deni ed by

the tr ial
cour t. This appeal foll ow ed.

II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW A ND A PPLI C A B LE L AW In review ing the legal suf f iciency of

the evidence , an ap pellat e cou rt m ust review all the ev iden ce in the light mo st favorable to the verdict, and a sk w het her “‘ any rati onal tr ier of fact cou ld have foun d the essen tial elem ent s of the c ri m e b eyond a rea sona ble10

dou bt—n ot w het her it b e l i e v e s t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e a tt h e t r i a l e s t a b l i s h e d g u il t bey ond a
reaso nab le dou bt.’” Laster v. Sta te , 275 S.W .3d 512, 517 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2009) ( q uoti ng Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (197 9)) (emp hasis i n origi nal). T he trier of fact is the sol e j udg e of the facts, t h e c re dib il ity of the w it ness es, and the w eig ht g iv en to tes ti mony . See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.04 (V er non 197 9) ; Jacks on , 443 U .S. at 31 8- 19; Beck

hamv. Sta te , 29 S.W .3d 1 48, 1 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2000, pet. re f’d)

. W e do not reev alu ate the w eig ht and credi bil ity of the ev ide nce, and w e do not subs ti tute our

ow n j udg ment for that of the tr ier of fact. Ki

ng v . St ate , 29 S.W .3d 5 56, 5 62 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a nc) ; Be ckham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151

. W e resol v e any inc onsi ste nci es in the e v ide nce in fav or of the j udg ment. Cur

ry v. Sta te , 30 S.W .3d 3 94, 406 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00). In con duct ing a fa ctua l suf f iciency rev iew , a court of app eals review s the evidence i n a ne ut r al l i g htt o de te r mi ne w he th er t he e v i de nc e i s so w ea ktha t th e j ur y ’ s v erdi c t s ee ms cl ear ly w ro ng and manifestl y

unjustor agai nstthe g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the
ev ide nce. Nea l v. State , 256 S.W .3d 264 , 275 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 8); Watson v . St ate , 204 S. W .3d 4 04, 4 14- 15 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) . Unl ess the re cord clear ly rev eal s that a different re sul t i s a ppropr iat e, w e mustdefer to t he fact- finder ’s dete rmi nati on c oncer nin g the w eig ht t o be g iv en to co ntradi cto ry tes ti mony . Lanco n v

. St ate , 253 S. W .3d 6 99, 7 05 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 8). T h e S t a t e is n o tre qu ir e d t o p re s e n t d ir e c te vid e n c e , su c h a s e ye wit n e s s t e s t im o n y, to es tabl is h g uil t. See G uevar a v . St ate , 15 2 S. W .3 d 45 , 49 ( Tex

. C r i m. A pp . 2004). “Circum stan tial evi den ce is a s proba tiv e as direct evidence in estab lishing g uilt of the act or, and circumsta ntial evidence alon e ca n be suf f icient to estab lish g uilt.” Hooper v. Sta te ,11

214 S.W .3d 9 , 13 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ; see Gu evara , 152 S.W .3d a t 49. The l aw does not req uire tha t eac h fact “po intdir ect ly and ind ependent ly

to the g uil t of the appel lan t, as lon g as the cumul ati v e effectof all the inc ri minat ing facts i s suff ici ent t o s uppor t t he conviction.” Hooper

, 214 S.W .3d a t 13; see Gu evara , 152 S.W .3d a t 49. Both leg al and fact ual suff ic ien cy are meas ur ed by

the ele ments of the offense as defined b y

a hy pothet ic all y

co rrectj ur

y charg e. Gr

otti v. Sta te , 273 S.W .3d 2 73, 2 80- 81 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2008) ; Ma li k v . St ate , 953 S.W .2d 234 , 240 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 7); se e Adi v. Sta te , 94 S.W .3d 1 24, 1 31 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, p e t. r e f ’d)

. “‘ Such a charg e [i s] one t hat a cc uratel y se ts out t he l aw , i s a uthor iz ed by the ind ic tment, does not
unn ecessa rily

in c re a se the State ’s burden of proof , or unn ecessa rily restrict the Sta te’s theor ies of li abi li ty , and adeq uatel y desc ri bes the par ti cul ar off ense for w hic h the defendant
w as tried.’” Vi

ll ar re al v. State , 2 8 6 S. W .3 d 32 1 , 3 2 7 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g Malik , 953 S. W .2d a t 240 ). Unde r the T exas Pena l Code, a p e rso n com mits th e of fense of credit card ab use if sh e k now ing ly

present s o r uses a c re d it card or debi t c ard w it h the i ntentto obtai n a benefit fraudul entl y and “t he c ard, w hether or not ex pired, h as not b een i ss ued t o hi m and is not used w it h the effect iv e c o n se n t o f the cardhol der .” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 32.31( b) (1 )( A) ; see Har re ll v. Sta te , 852 S.W .2d 521, 524 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1993)

. Sect ion 1.0 7 of the pe nal cod e de f ines “ben ef it” as “anything re a s ona bly regarded a s econ om ic g ain or adv antag e, i ncl udi ng [a] benefitto any othe r pe rs on i n w hose w elfare the ben ef iciary

is i nte rested .” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1.0 7(a)(7 ) (V e rn on Su pp. 200 9). Furthe rmore , a “cardho lder” is def ined as “the p erson nam ed o n the face o f a credit card
or de bi t c ard to w ho m or for w ho s e be ne fi t th e c ard i s i s s ue d. ” Id. § 32.31( a) (1 ); see12

Olur ebi v. Sta te , 870 S.W .2d 5 8, 61 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1994)

. A perso n acts kno w ingly “w ith respe ct to the result of his cond uct w hen he is aw are tha t his cond uct is reason ably certain to cau se the result.” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 6.0 3( b) (V er non 2 0 0 3)

. Inten t t o c ommit credi t c ard abus e may “ be i nferred from c ircums tanti al evidence[ ,] such as acts, w or ds, an d the cond uct of the ap pellan t.” See Gueva ra , 152 S.W .3d a t 50; Lee v

. St ate , 962 S.W .2d 171, 174 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 8, pe t.
re f’d) ( sta ti ng thata c ardhol der ’s l ack of eff ect iv e c onsen t may be p ro v en s ole ly

by ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce) ; see als o Hayes v. Sta te , N os. 01- 07- 00238- CR , 01- 07- 00239- CR , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 3 163, at *10 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1st Di st. ] May 1, 2008, pet. ref ’d) (mem . op. , notdesignate d for pub lication). III . A N AL Y S IS By her f irs t iss ue, G arz a c ontends thatthe ev ide nce demonst ra ti ng thatThomas Tri g o w as the cardhol der w as leg all y ins uff ic ien t becau se Mi d Val ley EM S w as the a ctu al cardh olde r. Addition ally , by her seco nd issue , G a rza conte nds th at th e evidence suppo rt ing her

co nv ic ti on i s l eg all y

and factual ly

i nsuffici ent b ecaus e the Sta te fail ed to prov e tha t t he c re ditca rd number al leg ed i n the i ndi ctmentw as the number of t he c ard tha t she all eg edl y abuse d. She further as ser ts that the S tate faile d to prov e tha t s he der iv ed any benefitfrom t he c ard. The Stat e arg ues that: ( 1) Garz a f ail ed to preser v e for rev iew any al leg ed defect s t o the form of the ind ic tment; and (2 ) the e v ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t her co nv ic ti on. A . Substantiv e Error in the Indictment W e agre e w it h th e St a te ’s c o n te n ti o n th a t G a rza’ s f irs t is su e co n st it u te s a ch a lle n ge13

to th e sub stan ce of

the ind ictme nt. In m aking he r f irst arg um ent , Garza repe ate dly menti ons that the ev ide nce ind ic ates that Thomas Tr ig o w as not t he c ardhol der and that the S tate coul d nothav e s ust ain ed it s b u rd e n i n prov ing credi t c ard abus e bec ause the ind ic tment all eg edl y

st ated the w ro ng ca rd hol der

. In other w ords, Garz a arg ues that the in d ict m e n t c ontai ns a s ubst anti v e defect becau se itsh oul d hav e reflect ed th at t he
cardhol der

w as Mi d Val ley

EM S rather

than Thomas Tr ig o. Ar ti cl e 1.1 4( b) of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re prov ide s t hat: If the de fendant does not o bje ct t o a defect, er ro r, or i rreg ula ri ty

of form or subs tanc e i n an ind ic tment or infor mati on before the date on w hic h the t ri al on th e mer it s c ommences , he w aiv es and forfei ts the r ig ht t o obj ectto the defect, er ro r, or

i rreg ula ri ty

and he may not ra is e the obj ect ion on appe al or in an y oth e r po stco n vict io n pro ce e d in g. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 1.14( b) ( Ver non 200 5) ; see Sanchez v. Sta te , 120 S.W .3d 3 5 9 , 367 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003) ; see als o Sal ahud- Di n v . St ate , 2 0 6 S

. W

. 3 d 2 03, 2 12 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, pet. ref’d) ( “S inc e omitti ng an ele ment f ro m an i ndi ctment is a de fect of sub sta nce in an i ndi ctment , i t nat urall y foll ow s t hat t he i ndi ctmenti s s ti ll an indictm entd espite t he om ission of t hate lem ent .”). Here, cou nsel f iled a m otion to quash the indictm ent , w hich w as de nied bythe trial court; howev er, at no pointdid Garza object t o t h e a lle gedly

erroneo us listing i n the indictm entof Th om as T rig o, as op pose d to Mid V a l l e y E M S , a s t h e c a rd h o l d e r. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 32 .3 1 (a )(1 ) (d e f in in g a cardhol der as “t he person named on the face of a credi t c ard or debi t c ard to w hom or

for
w hose benefit the card is is sued” ). Beca use couns el did not obj ectto the e rror co ntai ned in the ind ic tment before tr ial , thi s is sue is not pr eser v ed. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 1.1 4(b); se e al

so Sanchez , 120 S.W .3d a t 367 ; S a la h u d-Din , 206 S.W .3d a t 212

. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Gar z a’s first is sue.14

B. Leg al an d Fact ual Su ff icien cy W ith regard t o h e r s e cond issue, w e ho ld tha t the ev iden ce sup portin g Garza’s
conv ic ti on is leg all y

and factual ly

su ff ic ien t. W e bas e our co ncl usi on on the t est imony at tr ial reflect ing thatnumerous unautho ri z ed charg es for unleaded g asol ine w er e made by “B . G arz a” at v ar iou s g as sta ti ons in Ki ng sv il le from September 21, 2007 to Nov ember 2, 2007. Thomas i denti fied Ga rz a as “ B. G ar z a ” and not ed th at t he g as coul d onl y be pur chas ed by

us ing the PIN number thathe h ad i ss ued t o Gar z a. Thomas al so tes ti fied that the a mbulan ces co uld onl y be fil led up w it h di esel g asol ine si nce unl eaded g asol ine
w oul d bur n up the e ng ine s o f the ambul ances . T h o m a s stated t hat many of the
una uth oriz ed purch ases w ere ma de during time s w hen Garz a w as no t on du ty as a m edic for th e c ompany , i ncl udi ng Sunda y s w hen M id Val ley EM S w as not o pen. Fur ther more, both Can tu an d Thomas ide nti fied Thomas as a c ardhol der on t he c re dit -c ard ac count

. Mo re ov er , bot h Lopezand Gar z a admi tted that they

di d nothav e any pat ien ts in the Ki ng sv il le ar ea. In c ontrast , bot h Gar

z a and Lopezas ser

ted t hat M id Val ley

EM S s uper

v is ors u sed the c re dit

ca rd pur por

tedly iss u e d t o Garz a to fill up t hei r “L inc oln ca rs ” in Ki ng sv il le. Lop ez, Garz a, an d Pera les also test if ied th at Ga rz a w as never issue d a specif ic cred it card to be us ed to fill up the ambula nces w it h g as. Fur ther , bot h Gar

z a and Lopeznote d tha t g as cards w er e turned in to the Fal furr ias of fice at the end of ev er

y sh ift and thatse v eral ambula nces w oul d f il l up usin g the same g as card. Gar z a and Lopezdeni ed ev er bei ng issued a PIN num ber an d stat ed that they f illed up their am bula nce a t the Falf urrias Valero gas statio n. In ad dition , Garza denied ev er ma king unau tho riz ed p urcha ses using a Mid Val ley EM S c re ditca rd

.15

How ever, the test imo ny of P erales, L ope z , and Garz a is belied b y the fact th at ea ch had g ri ev ance s a gai n st Mid Val ley EM S and that the c re ditca rd st atements created by W ri g ht E x pr ess de m o n st ra ted t hat “ B. G arz a” made nu merou s p ur chas es of unlead ed g asol ine i n ex ces s o f $6,000 atv ar iou s g as sta ti ons in K ing sv il le. R eg ardle ss , t he resolut ion of

Perales’s, Lo pez’s, and Garza’s testimo ny w ith the app aren tly contrad ictory testim ony of

both Cantu and Th om as w a s with in the provi nce o f the jury, and w e mu st defer t o j ur

y ’s resol uti on. See Clay ton v . St ate , 235 S.W .3d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 ( T e x . C ri m. App. 2007) ( “W hen the re cord suppo rt s confli cti ng inferences , w e pr esume that the fact [- ]finder
re sol v ed th e c onf lic ts i n fav or of the p ro sec uti on and therefore de fer to that deter minat ion .” ); see a lso Curry, 30 S.W .3d a t 406 ; Ki ng , 29 S.W .3d a t 562 ; Beck ham , 29 S.W .3d a t 151 . Cl ear ly , the jur y rej ect ed the ex pla nati ons prov ide d byPeral es, Lopez , and Gar z a reg ardin g the all eg ed unau thor iz ed c re ditca rd purchas es. See La ncon , 253 S.W .3d at 70 5 (stating tha t “[t]he jury is i n the best po sition to judge the cred ibility of a w itness becau se iti s p re sentto hear the tes ti mony , as oppos ed to an a ppel la te cour t w ho reli es o n t h e c o l d re cor d” ); see als o D avi la v. State , 147 S.W .3d 5 72, 5 75 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus C h r i s t i 2 0 0 4 , p e t

. re f’ d ) ( n o t i n g t h a tj u ro rs a r e fre e t o a c c e p to r rej ectanyo r

a l l o f a witn e ss ’s t e st im o n y) (cit in g Al var ado v . St ate , 818 S.W .2d 1 00, 1 0 5 ( T e x . Ap p.–San Antoni o 1991, no p et.) ). Base d on the for e go in g, we hold, a f ter rev iew ing the evidence in th e lig ht m ost f a v orab le to the v erdict, th at th ere is legally suf f icient evidence to supp ort the jury ’s
conc lus ion thatGar

z a k now ing ly

present ed th e Mid Val ley EM S c re ditca rd to obtai n a benefit— more than $6,000 w orth of unl eaded g asol ine —w it hout the e ff ect iv e c onsen t of the c ardhol ders. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 32. 31( b) (1 )( A) ; see als o Jack son , 443 U .S.16

at 31 8- 19; Laster

, 275 S.W .3d at 517. W e f urther hold, after rev iew ing the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht, that the jur y ’s ve rd ic t i s n ot s o w eak that the v erdic t s eems c lea rl y w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ustor

ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d prepond e ra n ce of the ev ide nce. See Nea l , 256 S.W .3d a t 275 ; W ats on , 205 4 S.W .3d a t 4 14-1 5. Accordin gly , w e overrule Gar z a’s se cond is sue. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led both of Gar z a’s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Del iv er ed and filed the 19th day of Aug ust , 201 0.