ORAL ARGUMENT WAIVED CAUSE NO. 06-14-00172-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA

____________________________________________________________ GERALD MAC LOWREY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE 6 THJUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT LAMAR COUNTY, TEXAS TRIAL COURT NO. 25492; HONORABLE WILL BIARD, JUDGE

____________________________________________________________ 

# APPELLEE’S (STATE’S) BRIEF

____________________________________________________________ Gary D. Young, County and District Attorney Lamar County and District Attorney’s Office Lamar County Courthouse 119 North Main Paris, Texas 75460 (903) 737-2470 (903) 737-2455 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS ACCEPTED 06-14-00172-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 5/6/2015 11:03:02 AM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK-iIDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38. 2(a)(1)(A), the list of parties and counsel is not required to supplement or correct the appellant’s list.-iiTABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.: IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . viii ISSUE PRESENTED IN REPLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ISSUE/POINT OF ERROR PRESENTED IN REPLY NO. 1 : THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ISSUE/POINT OF ERROR PRESENTED IN REPLY NO. 2 : THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-iiiPAGE NO: ISSUE/POINT OF ERROR PRESENTED IN REPLY NO. 3 : THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY-SUFFICIENT FOR THE JURY, AS A RATIONAL FACT FINDER, TO FIND THAT “JOE TEX EXPRESS” WAS THE SPECIFIC OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 ISSUE/POINT OF ERROR PRESENTED IN REPLY NO. 4 : THE ALLEGED VARIANCE, IF ANY, (BETWEEN THE NAME OF THE SPECIFIC OWNER ALLEGED AND THE NAME PROVED) WAS IMMATERIAL, AND NOT FATAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-ivINDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES: PAGE NO: Boyette v. State , 632 S.W.3d 915, 916, 917 (Tex. App.--Houston [14 thDist.] 1982, pet. ref’d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 29, 30 Brooks v. State , 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Byrd v. State , 336 S.W.3d 242, 251, n. 48, 252, 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 26, 28 Cada v. State , 334 S.W.3d 766, 776 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Clark v. State , 305 S.W.3d 351, 355 (Tex. App.--Houston [14 th Dist.] 2010) aff’d , 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,18 Coleman v. State , 966 S.W.2d 525, 527-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17 Castillo v. State , 901 S.W.2d 550, 553 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1995, pet. ref’d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17, 18 Clayton v. State , 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Curry v. State , 30 S.W.3d 394, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Driggers v. State , 155 Tex. Crim. 475, 477, 236 S.W.2d 497, 498 (1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-19 Emenhiser v. State , 196 S.W.3d 915, 921 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 16, 18-vCASES: PAGE NO: Freeman v. State , 707 S.W.2d 597, 602-03 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Geick v. State , 349 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Gentry v. State , 770 S.W.2d 780, 786, 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 21 Gollihar v. State , 46 S.W.3d 243, 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Hardin v. State , 471 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17, 18 Hooper v. State , 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 318, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 23 Middleton v. State , 476 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Rodriguez v. State , 90 S.W.3d 340, 358 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2001, pet. ref’d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 18, 19 Taylor v. Illinois , 484 U.S. 400, 410, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Taylor v. State , 440 S.W.3d 854, 856 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2013), aff’d , 450 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 23 Thomas v. State , 444 S.W.3d 4, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 28-viCASES: PAGE NO: Varela v. State , 561 S.W.2d 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). . . 17 Vasquez v. State , 67 S.W.3d 229, 240-41 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

STATUTES: PAGE NO: TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. ART. 21.08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. ART. 29.06(3) . . . . . . . . . . 21 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2(a)(1)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

CONSTITUTIONS: PAGE NO: TEX. CONST. ART. 1, § 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-viiSTATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a criminal case and an appeal from the trial court’s final judgment of conviction for theft. See CR, pgs. 95-96. In October of 2013, a grand jury in Lamar County returned an original indictment that charged Lowrey with tw o (2) counts of alleged theft from his former employer, “Joe Tex Express.” See CR, pg. 4. After a jury trial, a jury, by its unanimous verdict, found Lowr ey guilty of the offense of theft of Material Aluminum/Copper/Bronze/Br ass less than $20,000.00, as charged in count 2 of the indictment. See RR, Vol. 4, pg. 97; 1Supp. CR, pg. 8. See also Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2014). After discharging the jury, the tr ial judge assessed punishment and sentenced Lowrey to two (2) years confinement in the state jail division but probated that sentence for five (5) years of community supervision. See RR, Vol. 4, pgs. 125-126. In its final j udgment of conviction, the trial court assessed a fine of $1,000.00 (probate d) along with court costs of $343.00 and restitution to be determined. See CR, pg. 95. In a timely fashion, Lowrey filed his notice of appeal. See CR, pg. 94. By this appeal, Lowrey brought four (4) issues/points of error.-viiiSTATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT The State will waive oral argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.2.-ixISSUES PRESENTED IN REPLY ISSUE/POINT OF ERROR PRESENTED IN REPLY NO. 1 : THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT. ISSUE/POINT OF ERROR PRESENTED IN REPLY NO. 2 : THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. ISSUE/POINT OF ERROR PRESENTED IN REPLY NO. 3 : THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY-SUFFICIENT FOR THE JURY, AS A RATIONAL FACT FINDER, TO FIND THAT “JOE TEX EXPRESS” WAS THE SPECIFIC OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. ISSUE/POINT OF ERROR PRESENTED IN REPLY NO. 4 : THE ALLEGED VARIANCE, IF ANY, (BETWEEN THE NAME OF THE SPECIFIC OWNER ALLEGED AND THE NAME PROVED) WAS IMMATERIAL, AND NOT FATAL.-1- CAUSE NO. 06-14-00172-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA

____________________________________________________________ GERALD MAC LOWREY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE 6 THJUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT; LAMAR COUNTY, TEXAS; TRIAL COURT NO. 25492; HONORABLE WILL BIARD, JUDGE

____________________________________________________________ 

# APPELLEE’S (STATE’S) BRIEF

____________________________________________________________ TO THE HONORABLE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS: COMES NOW, the State of Texas, by and through the elected County and District Attorney of Lamar County, Gary D. Young, and the Lamar County and District Attorney’s Office, respectfully submits its Appellee’s (State’s) Brief under Rule 38.2 of th e Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Unless otherwise indicated, Gerald M ac Lowrey will be referred to as “the appellant” or “Lowrey” and th e State of Texas as “the State.”-2- STATEMENT OF FACTS Factual Background . Since 2008, Joe Tex Xpress , a Texas company in Mount Vernon, shipped metals machinery, lumber, building materials, railroad materials and “things like that.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 114. A ccording to Angela Dunavant (Dunavant), the chief financial officer (or CFO) since 2006 (RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 112-113, 115), Joe Tex Xpress shipped for a manufacturer called “Hussey Copper” (Hussey Copper). See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 114, 179. Hussey Copper was located in Eminence, Kentucky. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 99, 166. Joe Tex Xpress shipped copper produc ts from Hussey Copper. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 179. Lowrey was an owner-operator for Joe Tex Xpress

. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 114. Lowrey was a “contract laborer” (RR, Vol. 3, pg. 150) and subject to an independent contractor agreement. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 153; Defendant’s Exhibit 1. Lowrey started in 2010, and he was terminated in 2013. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 115, 134-135, 162-164, 193. In 2013, some cargo went missing off of a load that Lowrey was to haul. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 115. On May 1, 2013, Lowrey hauled a load (boxes of copper bars) from-3- Hussey Copper in Kentucky to El Paso, Texas. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 116- 117, 127-128. Lowrey was delivering to two different companies in El Paso, Schneider Electric and Eaton Electric. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 126, 131, 144, 179. Joe Tex Xpress had the responsibility of taking care of the copper. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 117. See also State’s Exhibit 14 (bill of lading). To the one customer, Schneider Electric, the total weight was 17,089 pounds. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 183. To the other customer, the total weight was 28,321 pounds. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 183-184. Lowrey wasn’t just carrying copper bars that were four-inches wide. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 130. See also RR, Vol. 3, pg. 203 (the State “introduced evid ence that the load was loaded down with copper bars of varying widths”). On the 1 stor 2 ndof May, Dunavant got notification from Hussey Copper that the load had been “shorted.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 123. Dunavant got notification for one open box from Schneider Electric. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 131, 167; State’s Exhibit 12. See also RR, Vol. 3, pg. 144 (“open pallet, missing material”). Dunavant called Lowrey to discuss it with him. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 123-124.-4- Lowrey Contacted Law Enforcement . On May 4, 2013 (RR, Vol. 3, pg. 60), Keith Draper, a patrol deputy with the Lamar County Sheriff’s Office (RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 23-24), made contact with Lowrey, who reported that forty-one sticks of flat copper tubing had been stolen. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 25, 33-34. Deputy Draper was dispatched to an Exxon and a diner on Bonham Street , just west of the loop in Paris. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 31. During th e interview in the parking lot, Lowrey said that he had borrowed his daughter-in-law’s pickup and was going to sell some “scrap.” See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 26, 33. But, it was unclear if he sold it or not. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 33. Deputy Draper “just wrote a report about it and contacted CID” and then contacted Joel Chipman by telephone. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 27, 43. Lowrey also wrote a statement. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 29. According to policy with the Lamar County Sheriff’s Office, the field encounter with the witness was recorded (RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 29-31) , but it wasn’t placed into evidence to be saved. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 30. See also RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 44-45. CID Investigation . Since 2009, Joel Chipman (Chipman) worked for the Lamar County Sheriff’s Office as an investigator in the criminal investigation division. See-5- RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 40-41. Previously, Chipman retired from the Paris Police Department after seventeen (17) years. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 41. In May of 2013, Chipman was a certified peace officer. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 42. On May 4, 2013, Chipman received a call from Deputy Draper, who said that “he had taken a theft report from Mr. Lowrey.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 43. Chipman had an occasion to meet Lowrey before May of 2013. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 43. When Chipman started investigating this theft that Lowrey reported, it was reported as “copper bars being about a quarter in ch thick, four-inches wide and twelve feet long.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 47. They had a silver colored coating on them that was actually aluminum. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 47. Chipman characterized the description of this copper theft as “distinctive.” See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 48-49. See also State’s Exhibit 2. On May 15, 2013, Chipman went to Paris Iron and Metal. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 49-50, 73-74. Paris Ir on and Metal was lo cated at Seventh Northwest and Center Street in Paris, Lamar County, Texas. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 49-50. Chipman asked if they ha d any copper bars; and as soon as he said that, the person said, “I know ex actly what you’re talking about.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 50. Chipma n believed it was like 12 bars. See RR, Vol. 3,-6- pg. 51. See also State’s Exhibits 2-7; RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 80-81. At least five bars were the four-inch bars. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 53. The bars looked like “they were kept very well.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 55. In addition to taking photographs, Chipman got a receipt that was issued to Lowrey on May 1, 2013. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 56-57. See also State’s Exhibit 8. Lowrey received $1,896.00 for “790 pounds of number two copper” at $2.40 a pound. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 56-57. See also RR, Vol. 3, pg. 103. On May 17, 2013, Chipman interviewed Lowrey, when he arrived, left on his own, and was not under arrest. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 61-62. Chipman “asked him about the scrap.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 63. See also RR, Vol. 3, pg. 101. During the interview, Lowrey “had a relative that worked for the phone company and that he gave him old wire and scraps to sell.” See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 63, 102. See also RR, Vol. 3, pg. 84. “He said about 400 pounds.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 63. During the May 17 thinterview, Chipman showed him the receipt. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 64. When asked about the fact that it was 110 pounds light, Lowrey “advised that Chris Woodall had been in the truck when they went across the scales.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 65. See also RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 71,-7- 103. “Chris Woodall got out of the truck; and Chris Woodall weighs about 110 pounds.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 65. See also RR, Vol. 3, pg. 66. During the interview, Lowrey became loud “pretty quick.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 67. Voices were raised. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 104. Lowrey was angry and irritated. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 105. During the interview, Lowrey al so volunteered that “he had bought some off another truck driver up in Ke ntucky or somewhere, that this truck driver had some scraps, some extra bars that he hadn’t off loaded yet, but he was going back to the dock with these bars.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 67-68. See also RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 71, 85. “He was supposed to have delivered it somewhere.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 68. Lowrey also said that “he paid $200 for seven or eight sticks of it.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 85. See also RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 102-103. Afterwards, Lowrey said they went back to the house and picked up Lacrisha Lowrey (or Lacrisha Wooda ll), and they went to the casino in Grant, Oklahoma. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 71-72. Lacrisha is Lowrey’s ex daughter-in-law. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 106. At some point, Chipman made the determination that Lowrey was no longer a victim, but a suspect. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 89-90. Chipman made-8- that determination after the interview on May 17, 2013. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 90. Lowrey admitted that he defrauded Paris Iron and Metal on how much metal that he was selling. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 103, 109. According to Chipman, it was his understanding that the trucking company was financially responsible for the material, and that they were the victim in the case. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 95. Th e copper was “prepaid” by the owners in El Paso. See RR, Vol. 3., pg. 95. The seller was Hussey Copper. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 95. Indictment and Jury Trial . 1. The State’s Indictment Charged Lowrey with Theft . On October 10, 2013, a grand jury in Lamar County returned an original indictment that charged Lowrey with two (2) felony counts of theft. See CR, pg. 4. The State’s original indictment alleged the owner of the property to be “Joe Tex Express.” See CR, pg. 4. 2. The Cause Number Underlying this Appeal Proceeded to a Jury Trial . In due course, cause number 25492 proceeded to a jury trial. On August 4, 2014, the trial court conducted the voir dire proceedings (RR, Vol. 2, pgs. 1, 4), and lawfully impaneled a petit jury. See RR, Vol. 2, pg. 48. On August 5, 2014, the trial court called the cause number underlying-9- this appeal to put “a couple of items we’re going to put on the record.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 6. During the pre-tr ial conference, the following occurred: MR. HASLAM: I did one on Mr. Bueno. But I have -- we’re getting ready to go into trial as everybody knows, and the Court yesterday just instructed me to do it orally rather than present anything written. So, I don’t have anything written prepared, so I don’t know. I’m not in a position now where I can just kind of reverse fiel d and go generate a written one. THE COURT: Let me see what I’ve got and maybe we can come up with something. We’re going to go ahead and start. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 11. At the start of the jury trial, th e State presented the indictment, and Lowrey entered a plea of “not guilty.” As its first witness, the State called Deputy Draper, who recognized the de fendant, Lowrey, in open court. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 25-26. During Draper’s and Chipman’s testimony, the defense stipulated to th e identity of Lowrey. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 59. As its third witness, the St ate called Dunavant; and upon the conclusion of the State’s direct-exa mination, defense counsel for Lowrey argued outside the presence of the jury that he had subpoenaed Raul Bueno, an employee of Schneider Electric in El Paso. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 136. The return of that subpoena wa s filed on August 5, 2014. See 2Supp. CR, pg. 4. Defense counsel for Lowrey advised th at he got an e-mail from a lawyer in-10- Dallas, which stated: For various reasons, not the least of which is the full day of travel, I have been informed that Mr. Bueno will NOT be making it to the trial of your client. I wish I had better news but the last minute nature of this put Mr. Bueno and Square D in a difficult position, to say the least. See CR, pg. 82; RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 136-137. Defense counsel for Lowrey reque sted a writ of attachment and needed “to make a record.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 138. After argument, the trial court denied the writ. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 138, 142. Afterwards, the cross-examination of Dunavant began. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 143. Upon the conc lusion of Dunavant’s testimony, the State called Craig Skidmore as its last witness; and after his testimony (RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 177-200), the State rested. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 201. Subsequently, Lowrey moved for a di rected verdict (RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 202-204), which the trial court denied. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 204. Then, Lowrey urged the trial judge to “reconsider having Mr. Bueno brought here.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 204. After further argument, the trial judge remarked, “I’m going to deny your request.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 206. See also RR, Vol. 3, pg. 208 (“The motion will be denied.”). Ho wever, the trial judge also entered a “limine order that the State cannot argue that during its-11- closing that the removed some of the other widths from other crates.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 206. Lowrey’s Case-in-Chief . During his case-in-chief, Lowrey began and concluded his testimony on the first day of trial. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 209-279. Because a juror needed “to check the time because I ha ve one in daycare,” the trial court recessed the trial for that day. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 280. On the second day of the jury trial, August 6 th(RR, Vol. 4, pg. 1), the trial court pre-admitted the defenda nt’s exhibits 4, 5 and 6. See RR, Vol. 4, pg. 6. On the morning of August 6 th , Lowrey also filed a motion for continuance (CR, pgs. 68-82) “based on the nonappearance of the witness Bueno.” See RR, Vol. 4, pgs. 6-7. The trial court denied that motion and signed the order to that effect. See RR, Vol. 4, pg. 7; CR, pg. 83. As the guilt-innocence phase concluded, the trial court read its charge to the jury. See RR, Vol. 4, pg. 68; 1Supp. CR, pgs. 3-7. After closing arguments, the jury retired to begin its deliberations (RR, Vol. 4, pgs. 94- 95); and upon the conclusion of its deliber ations, the jury returned a verdict. See 1Supp. CR, pg. 8. By its verdict, the jury found Lowrey guilty of the offense of theft of Material Al uminum/Copper/Bronze/Brass less than-12- $20,000.00, as charged in count 2 of the indictment. See RR, Vol. 4, pg. 97; 1Supp. CR, pg. 8. The verdict was unanimous. See RR, Vol. 4, pg. 97. The trial court then discharged the jury. See RR, Vol. 4, pgs. 97-99. Punishment Phase of the Jury Trial . During the punishment phase, the State offered final judgments of conviction, and then rested. See RR, Vol. 4, pgs. 101-102. Lowrey presented his mitigation evidence (RR, Vol. 4, pgs. 102-120), and rested. See RR, Vol. 4, pg. 121. After brief argument from both parties, the trial court found Lowrey guilty of theft, as alleged in count 2 of the indictment. See RR, Vol. 4, pg. 125. The trial judge then assessed puni shment and sentencedLowrey to two (2) years confinement in the state jail division but probated that sentence for five (5) years of community supervision. See RR, Vol. 4, pgs. 125-126. On August 6 th , the trial court signed its final judgment of conviction by jury (CR, pgs. 95-96), that was la ter filed of record on August 26, 2014. See CR, pg. 95. On August 12, 2014, Lowrey timely filed his notice of appeal. See CR, pg. 94. Proceedings in this Court of Appeals . In this Court, Lowrey filed a no tice of appeal on or about August 18,-13- 2014. The District Clerk of Lamar County filed the Clerk’s Record on or about November 14, 2014. The offici al court reporter filed the Reporter’s Record on or about December 9, 2014. Subsequently, the District Clerk of Lamar County filed supplemental Cl erk’s Records on or about December 29 thand February 9, 2015. On or about February 12, 2015, Lowr ey filed his brief. On or about March 16 th , the State filed the first motion (of two motions) to extend the time to file its brief, which this Court granted. On or about April 15, 2015, the State filed its second motion for extens ion of time to file its brief, which this Court granted until May 6 th . The State filed its brief on May 6, 2015. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT By this appeal, Lowrey brought four (4) issues/points of error which alleged that (1) the trial court abus ed its discretion in denying a writ of attachment for a defense witness, Raul Bueno (Bueno); (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying a mo tion for continuance based on the nonappearance of the witness, Bueno; (3 ) the trial court erred in holding the evidence to be sufficient as to the id entity of the victim; and (4) the trial court erred in holding the evidence to be sufficient because of a fatal variance between the name of the vic tim alleged (“Joe Tex Express”) and-14- “Joe Tex Xpress, Inc.”). Upon final submission, this Court should overrule each of these issues/points of error, and affirm, for the following reasons: (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the writ of attachment because (a) Lowrey did not carry his burden to show materiality as to the witness, Bueno; and (b) Lowrey did not exercise diligence in timely serving Bueno; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance for sub-reasons (a)-(b) above; (3) the evidence was legallysufficient for a rational jury to fi nd “Joe Tex Express” was the specific owner of the property; and (4) the alle ged variance, if any, between the name alleged and the name proved was not fatal. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ISSUE/POINT OF ERROR PRESENTED IN REPLY NO. 1 : THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT. A. Standard of Review: Abuse of Discretion . With his first issue/point of erro r on appeal, Lowrey complained that he was entitled to compulsory process to secure the presence of a witness. See Appellant’s Brief, pgs. 2, 15-20. In the presen t case, the trial court initially ruled, “I’m goi ng to tell you, I’m going to deny your request for a-15- writ of attachment.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 138. Later, the trial court stated: THE COURT: Well, the Court’s recollection of the testimony was that the boxes are easily opened. There was no evidence that any of the other boxes were opened, just the one. So, the Court is going to deny your request for the writ. And you can obviously ask on cross. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 141-142. This Court should review the trial court’s decision to deny the writ of attachment using the abuse-of-discretion standard. See Clark v. State , 305 S.W.3d 351, 355 (Tex. App.--Houston [14 thDist.] 2010), aff’d , 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Emenhiser v. State , 196 S.W.3d 915, 921 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d); Rodriguez v. State , 90 S.W.3d 340, 358 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2001, pet. ref’d). B. The Right to Compulsory Process Was Not Absolute . Criminal defendants have a right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 10. But the right to compulsory process is not absolute. See Emenhiser , 196 S.W.3d at 921. “The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee, however, the right to secure the attendance and testimony of any and all witnesses; rather, it guarantees only compulsory proce ss for obtaining witnesses whose-16- testimony would be both material and favorable to the defense.” See Coleman v. State , 966 S.W.2d 525, 527-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). “To exercise the federal constitutional co mpulsory process right, the defendant must make a plausible showing to the trial court, by sworn evidence or agreed facts, that the witness’ testimony would be both material and favorable to the defense.” See id . at 528. “A defendant who has not had an opportunity to interview a witness may make the necessary showing by establishing the matters to which the w itness might testify and the relevance and importance of those matters to the success of the defense.” See id

. It is the burden of the appellant, Lowrey, to show that the testimony for which he seeks compulsory proce ss was material and necessary to his defense. See Castillo v. State , 901 S.W.2d 550, 553 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1995, pet. ref’d) (citing Hardin v. State , 471 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)). In Hardin , defense counsel took the sta nd and testified that although he believed that missing witnesses w ould support the defendant’s alibi, he did not know what the witnesses would say. See Castillo , 901 S.W.2d at 553. Counsel’s mere belief that a witness would support the defense’s case is insufficient to establish materiality. See Emenhiser , 196 S.W.3d at 921 (citing Castillo , 901 S.W.2d at 553; Hardin , 471 S.W.2d at 62)). Similarly,1 Lowrey’s motion for continuance was unsworn. See CR, pg. 71. -17- in Varela v. State , 561 S.W.2d 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), the Court held that the defendant’s testimony that a missing witness might say something to the defendant’s benefit was not suffic ient to show that the witness was material to the defense. See Castillo , 901 S.W.2d at 553 (citing Varela , 561 S.W.2d at 191). 1. Lowrey Did Not Carry His Bu rden to Show Materiality . In the present case, Lowrey did not carry his burden to show that Bueno’s testimony was material and necessary to his defense. See Castillo , 901 S.W.2d at 553 (citing Hardin , 471 S.W.2d at 62); Varela , 561 S.W.2d at 191. The State requested defense counsel to “write out what he would have this person testify to, I can -- if he’ll wr ite it out, I can see if I can stipulate to it to avoid the need of a writ for somebody in El Paso.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 137. See also RR, Vol. 3, pg. 142. But, nothing was ever written as to what Bueno would testify to. See Coleman , 966 S.W.2d at 528 (to exercise the federal constitutional compulsory proce ss right, the defendant must make a plausible showing to the trial court, by sworn evidence or agreed facts). Instead of making such a plausible showing to the trial court by

sworn 1 evidence or agreed facts, see id , defense counsel argued that the testimony was needed to “unring a be ll” (RR, Vol. 3, pg. 139, 140) and to-18- rebut the inference, which was allege dly created on direct-examination, that “there were other boxes ope ned on this shipment.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 137. Instead of sworn evidence or agreed facts from Lowrey, the trial court was left with defense counsel’s “mere belief” as to what Bueno would testify to, and counsel’s “mere belief” was insuff icient to establish materiality. See Emenhiser , 196 S.W.3d at 921 (citing Castillo , 901 S.W.2d at 553; Hardin , 471 S.W.2d at 62). Further, the trial c ourt was left with its recollection of the testimony (RR, Vol. 3, pg. 141), a nd that “[t]here was no evidence that any of the other boxes were opened, just the one.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 141- 142. Because the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Lowrey did not carry his burden to show materi ality, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the writ of attachment. See Clark , 305 S.W.3d at 355, Emenhiser , 196 S.W.3d at 921; Rodriguez , 90 S.W.3d at 358. 2. Lowrey Did Not Exercise Diligence to Subpoena Witness . Moreover, the right to compulsory process is dependent upon an accused’s initiative, and the nature of th e right requires that its effective use be preceded by “deliberate planning and affirmative conduct” by the defendant. See Rodriguez , 90 S.W.3d at 358 (quoting Taylor v. Illinois , 484 U.S. 400, 410, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988)). In Driggers v. State ,-19- 155 Tex. Crim. 475, 236 S.W.2d 497 (1950), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed a subpoena for the attendance of a witness that was issued six days before the trial date, and held the following: It appears to us that the proce ss was not issued in time and that the delay in having the subpoena issued is unexplained. The court before whom the heari ng was had has rather a wide discretion in such matters, and this court will not hold that he abused the same unless it definite ly appears from the record that he has done so. See id , 155 Tex. Crim. at 477, 236 S.W.2d at 498. In the present case, Lowrey issued a subpoena on July 25, 2014, a Friday. See 2Supp. CR, pg. 3. According to the officer’s return, Cynthia Nava (“SCH 3453”) served Raul Bueno on July 29, 2014 (2Supp. CR, pg. 4), which was a Tuesday before th e jury trial began with voir dire proceedings on Monday, August 4, 2014. See RR, Vol. 2, pg. 1. In serving a defense witness (Bueno) six days before trial, as in Driggers , the trial court could have reasonably conc luded that Lowrey’s right to compulsory process was not effectively used by “deliber ate planning and affirmative conduct.” See Rodriguez , 90 S.W.3d at 358. See also Gentry v. State , 770 S.W.2d 780, 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (the appellant has failed to prove he acted diligently in attempting to obtain the witness’ presence in court). For this second reason, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the writ-20- of attachment. In conclusion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the writ of attachment. Therefore, Lowrey ’s first issue/point of error should be overruled. ISSUE/POINT OF ERROR PRESENTED IN REPLY NO. 2 : THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. A. Standard of Review: Abuse of Discretion . This Court should review a trial court’s denial of a mid-trial continuance on an abuse of discretion standard. See Vasquez v. State , 67 S.W.3d 229, 240-41 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Mid-trial, on the morning of August 6 th , Lowrey filed his motion for continuance (CR, pgs. 68-82) “based on the nonappearance of the witness Bueno.” See RR, Vol. 4, pgs. 6-7. The trial court denied that motion and signed the order to that effect. See RR, Vol. 4, pg. 7; CR, pg. 83. B. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Denying Lowrey’s Motion for Continuance . 1. Lowrey’s Motion Made No Mention of the Statutory Requirement Under Article 29.06(3) . In the present case, Lowrey’s August 6 thmotion for continuance made no mention, as required by statute, of “[t]he facts which are expected to be-21- proved by the witness, and it must appear to the court that they are material.” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 29.06(3). See also Gentry , 770 S.W.2d at 786-87 (applying Article 29.06 require ments to motions for continuance made during the course of trial under Article 29.13). Even if the motion had complied with the statutory requireme nt under article 29.06(3), the trial court could have reasonabl y concluded that Lowrey did not carry his burden to show materiality. Therefore, the tr ial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lowrey’s mid-trial motion for continuance. 2. Lowrey’s Motion Was Unsworn . In Gentry , there was no written sworn motion for continuance. See Gentry , 770 S.W.2d at 786. Since the motion is not self-proving, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held in Gentrythat the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals also held that “the record mu st contain an affidavit or otherwise reflect what the absent witne ss would have testified to.” See id

. In the present case, Lowrey’s motion was written, but unsworn. See CR, pg. 71. Further, Lowrey’s motion di d not contain an affidavit, that was signed and notarized, and di d not reflect what Bueno would have testified to. See CR, pg. 71; Gentry , 770 S.W.2d at 786. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discre tion in denying the-22- mid-trial motion for continuance. Lo wrey’s second issue/point of error should be overruled. ISSUE/POINT OF ERROR PRESENTED IN REPLY NO. 3 : THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY-SUFFICIENT FOR THE JURY, AS A RATIONAL FACT FINDER, TO FIND THAT “JOE TEX EXPRESS” WAS THE SPECIFIC OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. A. Standard of Review: Sufficiency of the Evidence . With his third issue/point of error, Lowrey complained that the trial court erred in holding the evidence to be sufficient to sustain the conviction because the evidence was insufficient to prove the identity of the victim, as alleged in the indictment. See Appellant’s Brief, pg. 21. In evaluating legal sufficiency, this Court should review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment to determine whether any rational jury c ould have found the essential elements of theft beyond a reasonable doubt. See Taylor v. State , 440 S.W.3d 854, 856 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2013), aff’d , 450 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing Brooks v. State , 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). Under Jackson , when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rati onal trier of fact could have found the essential-23- elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 318-19. This Court examines legal sufficiency under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the jury “to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony , to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basi c facts to ultimate facts.” See Taylor , 440 S.W.3d at 856; Hooper v. State , 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Jackson , 443 U.S. at 318-19); Clayton v. State , 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). B. The Evidence Was Legally-Sufficient to Prove the Existence of the Specific Owner, i.e., an Entity Known as “Joe Tex Xpress” . Article 21.08 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provided the following: Where one person owns the prope rty, and another person has the possession of the same, the ownership thereof may be alleged to be in either. Where property is owned in common, or jointly, by two or more persons, the ownership may be alleged to be in all or either of them. When the property belongs to the estate of a deceased person, the ownership may be alleged to be in the executor, administrator or heirs of such deceased person, or in any one of such heirs. Where the ownership of the property is unknown to the grand ju ry, it shall be sufficient to allege that fact. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 21.08.-24- 1. The Existence of the Specific Owner is an Element of the Offense, But Not the Name . The existence of the specific owner is an element, but not the name. See Byrd v. State , 336 S.W.3d 242, 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Nowhere in the penal code is the name of the owner made a substantive element of theft. See id (citing Freeman v. State , 707 S.W.2d 597, 602-03 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (plurality op.) (noting that the name of the owner of property is not a part of the definition of theft, although the name of the owner must be alleged in the charging instrument)). In Byrd , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that the Code of Criminal Procedure, as a matter of state law, requires the State to allege the name of the owner of property in its charging instrument. See Byrd , 336 S.W.3d at 251, n. 48. In Byrd , the Court of Criminal Appeals also held that: When an entity, such as a corporation, owns property, the traditionally preferable practice ha d been to allege ownership in a natural person acting for the corporation. But as Judge Clinton noted, this practice developed in the early twentieth century before the adoption of the 1974 Penal Code when the definition of “owner” for purposes of the theft statutes was much narrower. Judge Clinton explained that, under the current Penal Code, a corporation may both own and have actual possession of property. Thus it is perfectly permissible, and sometimes preferable, to now al lege the corporation--Wal-Mart, for example--as the owner of the property and then call any agent or employee who holds a relevant position in the company to testify that the corporation did not give effective-25- consent for a person to steal or shoplift its property. Although the name of the owner is not a substantive element of theft, the State is required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person (or entity) alleged in the indictment as the owner is the same person (or entity)-- regardless of the name--as shown by the evidence. . . . In sum, it is the identity of the person, not his formal name, that controls and guides the sufficiency of the evidence review. See id . at 252-53 (references to footnotes omitted). In applying the Byrd rationale above, the State’s indictment alleged “Joe Tex Express” as the owner thereof. See CR, pg. 4. During the trial on August 5, 2014, Dunavant te stified that she worked for “Joe Tex Xpress” in an office in Mount Vernon, Texas since 2006. See RR, Vol. 3, pgs. 112-113. Dunavant testified that she was the “CFO” or chief financial officer, and that she was personally familiar with Lowrey as an “owner-operator for our company.” See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 114. Dunavant also testified, as follows: Q. Okay. And what type of things does your company ship? A. Metals, machinery, lumber, building materials, railroad materials, things like that. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 114. See also Defendant’s Exhibit 1. Viewing the evidence above in the li ght most favorable to the jury’s verdict, a rational fact finder coul d have found, beyond a reasonable doubt,-26- that “Joe Tex Xpress” was an “entity” and the specific owner, as alleged in the indictment. See CR, pg. 4. In addition to the references to a “company” above, a rational fact finder could have inferred that a chief financial officer would act as an agent or employee of the “entity.” Further, a rational fact finder could have found, beyond a reas onable doubt, that “Joe Tex Xpress” was the same entity--regardless of the name that included “Inc.”--as shown by the evidence. See Byrd , 336 S.W.3d at 252-53. Here, there was no evidence of any “person” that could beidentified as “Joe Tex”; rather, the identity of the entity (“Joe Tex Xpress” ) remained the same and consistent throughout the entire jury trial. Thus, the evidence was legally-sufficient for a rational jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the owner was an entity known as “Joe Tex Xpress.” Accordingly, Lowrey’s th ird issue/point of error should be overruled. ISSUE/POINT OF ERROR PRESENTED IN REPLY NO. 4 : THE ALLEGED VARIANCE, IF ANY, (BETWEEN THE NAME OF THE SPECIFIC OWNER ALLEGED AND THE NAME PROVED) WAS IMMATERIAL, AND NOT FATAL. A. Standard of Review: Materi al and Immaterial Variances . With his final issue, Lowrey alleged that there was a material and fatal variance between the name alle ged and the name proved. See Appellant’s-27- Brief, pg. 21. There are two types of variances in an evidentiary-sufficiency analysis: material variances and immaterial variances. See , e . g ., Thomas v. State , 444 S.W.3d 4, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Immaterial variances do not affect the validity of a criminal conviction, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that a hypothetically correct jury charge n eed not incorporate allegations that would give rise to only immaterial variances. See id (citing Geick v. State , 349 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Gollihar v. State , 46 S.W.3d 243, 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that the fact that the indictment alleged the incorrect serial number for a stolen Go Kart was immaterial and did not warrant reversal of the convi ction because the serial number was not a statutory element and the appellant was not prejudiced by use of the incorrect serial number)). However, a material variance renders a conviction infirm, and the only remedy is to render an acquittal. See Thomas , 444 S.W.3d at 9 (citing Cada v. State , 334 S.W.3d 766, 776 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reversing the judgment of the court of appeals and rendering an acquittal when there was a material variance between the indictment and the proof adduced at trial); Curry v. State , 30 S.W.3d 394, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (“If the evidence is insufficient to support [the] conviction, the-28- remedy is acquittal.”). B. The Alleged Variance, If Any, Between the Name Alleged and the Name Proved Was Immaterial . As previously explained above, the existence of the specific owner is an element, but not the name. See Byrd , 336 S.W.3d at 251. Nowhere in the penal code is the name of the owner made a substantive element of theft. See id

. In the present case, the alleged variance, if any, between the name alleged (i.e. “Joe Tex Express”) (CR, pg. 4) and the name proved (“Joe Tex Xpress, Inc.”) (e.g. Defendant’s Exhib it 1) was immaterial because the name of the specific owner was not a substantive element of theft, see id ; and a hypothetically correct jury charge n eed not incorporate allegations that would give rise to only immaterial variances. See Thomas , 444 S.W.3d at 9. Also, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held in Middleton v. State , 476 S.W.2d 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) that “there is nothing to indicate that the omission of the averment that the Humble Oil and Refining Company is a corporation could have mi sled the appellant.” See id . at 16. See also Boyette v. State , 632 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Tex. App.--Houston [14 thDist.] 1982, pet. ref’d). In Boyette , “Jetronics Inc.” was a small company dealing in the sale of-29- electronic, radar and ai rcraft equipment. See id . at 916. The appellant was the company bookkeeper which authorized her to write checks on the corporation accounts. See id . at 917. The evidence at trial was undisputed that in September and Oc tober of 1978, the appellant wrote two checks for her own benefit on a Jetronics’ account; and a jury convicted her of felony theft. See id

. In Boyette , the appellant maintained that the trial court erred in entering judgment and in failing to set aside her conviction and grant her a new trial because there was a fatal vari ance between the name alleged in the indictment and the name proved, ther eby making the evidence insufficient to establish ownership in the named owner. See id . Specifically, the appellant pointed out the indictment alleged ownership of the stolen property in “Jetronics,” when the true name of the owner as shown in the evidence was “Jetronics, Inc.” See id

. In Boyette , however, the court of appeal s disagreed by not seeing this variance as fatal, nor did the court of appeals believe the evidence was insufficient to establish ownership of the stolen property. See id . The Boyette Court reasoned that it was an esta blished principle of Texas criminal law that all essential averments in an indictment must be proved as alleged.-30- See id . Even though the “true” name of the owner was Jetronics, Inc., the Boyette Court reasoned that the testimony was uncontroverted that Jetronics and Jetronics, Inc. were one and the same, and that Jetronics, Inc. was generally referred to as Jetronics. See id . In Boyette , the court of appeals saw no variance between the name alleged in the indictment and the name proved. See id . If a variance did exist at any point in the testimony, it was not of a fatal or material nature when seen in light of the overall testimony. See id

.Clearly, the Boyette rationale applied to the present facts and circumstances, and the alleged variance between the name alleged (i.e. “Joe Tex Express”) and the name proved (“Joe Tex Xpress, Inc.”) was not fatal. See id . Throughout Lowrey’s trial, the testimony was uncontroverted that “Joe Tex Express” and “Joe Tex Xpre ss, Inc.” were “one and the same” trucking company that contracted with Lowrey as an owner-operator to haul loads. See RR, Vol. 3, pg. 114; Defendant ’s Exhibit 1. If a variance did exist at any point in the testimony, as in Boyette , it was not of a fatal or material nature when seen in light of the overall testimony. See id

. Therefore, Lowrey’s fourth and final issue/point of error should be overruled.-31- PRAYER WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State of Texas prays that upon final submission without oral argument, this Court affirm the trial court’s final judgment of conviction, adjudge court costs against the appellant, and for such othe r and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which it may be justly and legally entitled. Respectfully submitted, Gary D. Young Lamar County & District Attorney Lamar County Courthouse 119 North Main Paris, Texas 75460 (903) 737-2470 (903) 737-2455 (fax) By:________________________________ Gary D. Young, County Attorney SBN# 00785298 ATTORNEYS FOR STATE OF TEXAS-32- CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Rule 9.4(i)(3) of th e Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the “Appellee’s (State’s) Brief” was a computer-generated document and contained 7997 words--not including the Appendix, if any. The undersigned attorney certified that he relied on the word count of the computer program, which was used to prepare this document.

______________________________ GARY D. YOUNG gyoung@co.lamar.tx.us CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, a true copy of the “Appellee’s (State’s) Br ief” has been served on the 6 thday of May, 2015 upon the following: Gary L. Waite 104 Lamar Avenue Paris, TX 75460

______________________________ GARY D. YOUNG gyoung@co.lamar.tx.us