### In th e Cour t o f Criminal Appeal s o f

Texa s Caus e No . 14-13-00847-C R

I n th e Cour t o f Appeal s fo r

th e Fourteent

h Distric t o f Texa s a t Housto n Caus e No . 135231 4

, I n th e 176t

h

### Distric t Court O f Harri s County , Texa s LIS A HUNTER Appellant v . TH E STAT E O FTEXA S Appellee PETITION FO RDISCRETIONARY REVIE W

Case y Garret

t Texa s Bar

No . 0078719 7 121 4 Height s Blvd . Houston , Texa s 7700 8 713-228-380 0 Casey.garrett@sbcglobal.ne t PD-1663-14 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 12/22/2014 11:42:00 AM Accepted 12/29/2014 11:52:56 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK

### IDENTITY OF PARTIE S AN D COUNSE

L Counse l fo r

Appellan t

at Trial : Crespi n M . Linto n Texa s Ba r No . 1239285 0 Lloy dM . Corpenin g Texa s Bar

No . 0485840 0 Th e Lyri c Centr

e 44 0 Louisiana , St e 90 0 Houston , Texa s 7700 2 713-236-131 9 Counse l fo r

Appellan t

o n Appeal : Case y Garret

t 121 4 Height s Boulevar d Houston , Texa s 7700 8 Texa s Bar

No . 0078719 7 713-228-380 0 Counse l fo r

th e Stat e at

Trial : Jil l Foltermann , Texa s Ba r No . 2405549 2 E dMcClees , Texa s Ba

r No . 240327 9 Assistan t Distric t Attorney s 120 1 Frankli n Houston , Texa s 7700 2 713-755-580 0 Counse l fo r

th e State o n Appeal : Harri s Count

y Distric t Attorney' s Offic e Appellat e Divisio n 120 1 Franklin , Suit

e 60 0 Houston , Texa s 7700 2 (713)755-580 0 Tria l Judge : The Honorabl e Stace y W . Bon d

2

### TABL E OFCONTENT S IDENTIT Y O FPARTIE S AND COUNSEL 2 TABL E O FCONTENT S 3 INDE X O F AUTHORITIE S 4 STATEMENT REGARDIN G ORAL ARGUMENT 5 STATEMENT O FTHE CAS E 5 STATEMENT O F PROCEDURAL HISTORY 5 QUESTIO N PRESENTED FO RREVIE W 6 PRAYER , 8 CERTIFICAT

E O FCOMPLIANC E , 9 CERTIFICATE OFSERVIC E 1 0

### INDEX O FAUTHORITIE S

Case s Davis v . Alaska, 41 5 U.S . 308 , 9 4 S.Ct . 1105 , 3 9 L.Ed.2 d34 7 (1973 ) 8 Hammerv . State, 29 6 S.W.3 d55 5 (Tex . Grim . App . 2009 ) 8 Santellan v . State, 93 9 S.W.2 d15 5 (Tex . Crim . App . 1997 ) 8 Rule s Tex . R . Evid . 608(b ) & 613(b ) 8 Constitutiona l Provision s U.S . Const . Amend . V 8

### STATEMENT REGARDIN G ORAL ARGUMENT

Ms . Hunte r

request s ora

l argument . STATEMEN

T O FTH E CAS E Ms . Hunte r

wa s charge db y indictment wit h th e felon y offens e o f tamperin g wit

h agovernmental documen t (C.R . 7) . I n particular , sh e wa s charge dwit

h unlawfully , intentionall y an dknowingl y presentin g a governmental record , namel y "Temporary Texa s Departmen t o f Publi c Safety Permit, " wit

h knowledg e o f

it s falsity an dwit

h th e intent

t o defrau d an dhar manothe r

(C.R . 7) . Ms . Hunter

ple dno t guilty t o th e indictmen t

an d th e cas e wa s trie dbefor e ajur y (R.R. 3 - 3) . Th e jur y foun dMs . Hunte r guilty a s charge di n th e indictmen t (R.R. 4 —13) . Thereafter , th e jur y assesse dpunishment

at confinemen t

fo r nin e year s i n th e Institutional Divisio n o f

th e Texa s Departmen t o f Crimina l Justic e (C.R , 129) . Ms . Hunter timel y file dnotic e o f

appeal . STATEMEN

T O F PROCEDURAL HISTORY / 

### Th e Court

o f Appeal s file damemorandu mopinio n affirmin g th e convictio n o n Decembe r 9 , 2014 . N o motio n fo r rehearin g wa s filed . Pursuan t t o Rul e 68. 2 o f

th e Texa s Rule s o f

Appellat e Procedure , thi s

### Petitio n fo r Discretionar

y Revie w shoul db e file dthirty day s afte r th e day th e cour t o f appeal s file dit s opinion . QUESTIO N PRESENTED FO RREVIE W I f acriminal defendan t

exercise s he r

Fift h Amendmen t

righ t no t t o testif y at trial t o avoi dth e introductio n o f he r prio r crimina l histor y an dth e Stat e introduce s i t anyway , ha s he r

Fift h Amendmen t

righ t bee n rendere dineffective ?

ARGUMENT I f acrimina

l defendan t

exercise s he r

Fift h Amendmen t

right no t t o testif y at trial t o avoi dth e introductio n o f he r prio r crimina l history an dth e State introduce s i t anyway , ha s her

Fift h Amendmen t

righ t bee n rendere dineffective ? Durin g it s case-in-chief , th e prosecuto r

aske dMik e Mauldin , an investigato r

fo r th e D.A. s Offic e i f

h e ran acrimina

l histor y chec k o n Ms . Hunte r durin g hi s investigation . H e affirme dthat h e di d (R.R. 3 - 64-65) . Th e prosecuto r

aske dhi mi f

th e searc h showe dthat Ms . Hunte r

ha da crimina l convictio n (R.R. 3 —

65) . Counse l fo r

th e defens e objecte dan dth e court overrule dth e objection . Th e investigato r wa s permitte dt o testif

y that Ms . Hunter

ha dapreviou s crimina l convictio n unrelate dt o th e charg e sh e wa s defendin g a

t tria l (R.R. 3 - 65) . Rul e 404(b ) prohibit s th e admissio n o f evidenc e o f

extraneou s offense s committe db y th e defendan t t o prov e that , o n th e occasio n i n question , th e defendan t

acte di n conformity wit

h th e characte r

demonstrate d

### b y th e other badacts . Santellan v . State, 93 9 S.W.2 d155 , 16 8 (Tex . Grim . App . 1997) . I f

adefendan t

choose s t o testify , however , th e Stat e may introduc e evidenc e o f

extraneou s offense s t o impeac h th e defendant' s testimony , unde r

certai n circumstances . Tex . R . Evid . 608(b ) & 613(b) ; Hammerv . State, 29 6

S.w.S d555 , 56 2 (Tex . Grim . App . 2009 ) (quotin g Davis v . Alaska, 41 5 U.S . 308 , 316 , 9 4 S.C t 1105 , 1110 , 3 9 L.Ed.2 d34 7 (1973)) . I n it s opinion , th e cour

t belo w state dtha t

appellan t cite dn o authority t o support

he r argument . T o th e contrary , appellan t cite dth e Unite dState s Constitution , th e Rule s o f Evidenc e an da

t leas t tw o opinion s fro mthi s Court i n support

o f her position . Th e Fift h Amendmen t

t o th e Unite dState s Constitutio n give s al l defendant s th e righ t

t o b e fre e fro mself-incrimination . U.S . Cons t Amend . V . A s such , th e Constitutio n prevent s th e prosecutio n fro mcompellin g th e testimon y o f

th e accuse di n atrial fo r acrimina

l offense . I n practical terms , man y defendant s op t

t o exercis e thei r

Fift h Amendmen t

righ t no t t o testif y becaus e the y kno w that

i f the y d o testify , th e Stat

e wil l b e permitte dt o cross-examin e the mabou t prio r conviction s that

otherwis e coul dno t

com e i n a t trial .

### Ms . Hunter opte dno t

t o testif y fo r precisel y thi s reason . He r counse l objecte dt o th e introductio n o f he r prio r convictio n o n th e basi s tha t th e State canno t compe l he r

t o b e awitnes s agains t

herself . B y introducin g th e prio r convictio n i n th e absenc e o f her testimony , th e State an dth e court rendere d he r Fift h Amendmen t

righ t no t t o testif y ineffective . M s Hunter' s prio r conviction s wer e irrelevan t t o th e cas e at

ba r an dshoul dno t

hav e bee n introduce db y th e State . He r convictio n shoul db e overturne dan dth e cas e shoul db e remande dfo r

ane w trial .

PRAYER Appellan t respectfull y pray s thi s Honorabl e Cour t t o gran t hi s petitio n fo r discretionar

y review . Respectfull y submitted , /s/Case y Garrett Case y Garret

t Texa s Bar

No . 0078719 7 121 4 Height s Blvd . Houston , Texa s 7700 8 713-228-380 0

### CERTIFICATE O FCOMPLIANC E

Thi s i s t o certif

y that th e petitio n fo r

discretionary revie w ha s 1,27 2 word s i n complianc e wit h Rul e 9 o f

th e Texa s Rule s o f

Appellat e Procedure .

_/s/Case y Garrett

_ Case y Garret

t Texa s Bar

No . 0078719 7 121 4 Height s Blvd . Houston , Texa s 7700 8 713-228-380 0 Casey.garrett@sbcglobal.ne t

### CERTIFICATE O F SERVIC E

Thi s i s t o certif

y tha t acop y o f

th e foregoin g instrumen t ha s bee n sen t throug h th e e-fil e syste mt o th e followin g party : Harri s Count

y Distric t Attorney' s Offic e Appellat e Divisio n 120 1 Franklin , Suite 60 0 Houston , Texa s 7700 2

/s/Case y Garrett Case y Garret

t Texa s Bar

No . 0078719 7 121 4 Height s Blvd . Houston , Texa s 7700 8 713-228-380 0 Casey.garrett@sbcglobal.ne t

1 0Decembe r 9 , 201 4



### JUDGMEN T 

### 5ff0ttrt£Etttf

j (Ermr tnf Appeal s LIS A HUNTER , Appellan t NO . 14-13-OOS47-C RV .

TH E STAT

E O FTEXAS , Appelle e

Thi s caus e wa s hear do n th e transcrip t o f th e recor do f

th e cour t

below . Havin g considere dth e record , thi s Cour t hold s tha t

ther e wa s n o erro r

i n th e judgment . Th e Cour t

order s th e judgmen t

AFFIRMED . W e furthe r

orde r thi s decisio n certifie dbelo w fo r observance .Affirme d an d Memorandu m Opinio n file d Decembe r9 , 2014 .

I n Th e 

## (Enur tof Appeal s NO . 14-13-00847-C R LIS A HUNTER , Appellan t

V . TH E STAT E O F TEXAS , Appelle e O n Appea l fro m th e 185th Distric tCour t

Harri s County , Texa s Tria l Cour tCaus e No . 135231 4 MEMORANDU M OPINIO N A jur y foun dappellan t

Lis aHunte r

guilty o f

tamperin g wit h agovernmenta l recor dwit h th e inten t

t o defrau do r

har manothe r

an dassesse dpunishmen t a t nin e years ' imprisonment . Appellan t contend s tha t

th e tria l cour t

erre di n admittin g evidenc e o f a previou s convictio n an dtha t th e evidenc e i s insufficien t t o suppor t

he r conviction . W e affirm .

### FACTUA LBACKGROUN D

Appellan t an dJeann e Skipwith me t a t amenta l health facilit y wher e Skipwith wa s livin g an dth e appellan t wa s employe da s acook . Skipwit h eventuall y move dou t

o f th e facilit y an dint o a n apartment , wher e appellan t live dwit h he r

fo r som e perio do f time . I n Decembe r

2011 , appellan t

wa s hire da s asaleswoma n b y Davi dMcDavi d Honda , acar

dealershi p i n Houston . Appellan t fille dou t

th e ne w employe e paperwor k usin g Skipwith' s name , an dpresente da s identificatio n Skipwith' s Socia l Securit y car d an daTexa s Departmen t o f Publi c Safety temporar y drivin g permi t issue dwit h Skipwith' s nam e an dappellant' s picture . Appellan t als o identifie dhersel f

a s Jeann e Skipwit h with coworker s an dmanagemen t whil e a t th e dealership . A t som e point , polic e receive daCrim e Stopper s ti p concernin g apossibl e identity thef

t cas e involvin g appellant , wh o wa s identifie da s workin g a t Davi d McDavi dHonda . A polic e investigatio n reveale dtha t th e appellan t

an dSkipwit h wer e tw o differen t

people , tha t

bot h wer e affiliate dwit

h th e menta l healt h facility , an dtha t appellan t ha dpresente dth e temporar y drivin g permit , agovernmenta l record , t o th e dealershi p whe n sh e applie dfo r employment . I n Jun e 2012 , polic e arreste dth e appellan t a t th e dealershi p a s sh e wa s attemptin g t o collec t apaycheck . Appellan t

initiall y identifie dhersel f

t o polic e a s Jeann e Skipwith , bu t the n admitte dsh e wa s Lis aHunter . ANALYSI S O FTH E ISSUE S I n tw o issues , appellan t

contend s tha t

th e tria l cour t

erre di n allowin g evidenc e tha t sh e ha dapreviou s conviction , eve n thoug h appellan t di dno t testif y i n he r defense , renderin g he r

Fift h Amendmen t

righ t no t t o testif y ineffective . Appellan t

als o contend s tha t th e evidenc e i s insufficien t t o suppor t

he r convictio n becaus e ther e i s n o evidenc e sh e acte dwit h th e inten t

t o defrau do r

har manother .I . Admissio n o f Evidenc e o f

Previou s Convictio n Amon g th e State' s witnesse s a t tria l wa s Mik e Mauldin , a n investigato r fo r th e Distric t Attorney' s Office . Th e prosecuto r aske dMauldi n i f

h e ha dru n th e typ e o f crimina l backgroun dchec k tha t acivilia n coul dru n o n th e nam e Lis aHunter , a s th e prosecuto r

ha dpreviousl y requested . Mauldi n confirme dtha t h e ha ddon e s o an d explaine dth e step s h e too k t o searc h online . Th e prosecuto r aske dhi mi f

th e searc h showe dtha t

th e appellan t

ha dacrimina l conviction . Ove r defens e counsel' s objectio n base do n "th e Fift h Amendmen t righ t t o testif

y an dhearsay, " Mauldi n answere d affirmatively . Th e natur e o f th e convictio n wa s no t

specified . O n appeal , appellan t

contend s th e admissio n o f thi s evidenc e vitiate dhe r Fift h Amendmen t

righ t t o b e fre e fro mself-incrimination . Se e U.S . Const , amend . V ("N o perso n . . . shal l b e compelle di n an y crimina l cas e t o b e awitnes s agains t himself . . . .") . Appellan t

reason s tha t

althoug h Texa s Rul e o f Evidenc e 404(b ) prohibit s th e admissio n o f

evidenc e o f

extraneou s offense s t o prov e tha t adefendan t

acte di n conformit y wit h tha t

conduct , th e Stat e may , i n certai n circumstances , introduc e suc h evidenc e t o impeac h th e defendant' s testimon y i f th e defendan t

choose s t o testify . Se e Tex . R . Evid . 60S(b) , 613(b) . A s apractica l matter , appellan t argues , man y defendant s op t t o exercis e thei r

Fift h Amendmen t

righ t no t t o testif y becaus e the y kno w tha t i f the y d o testify , th e State wil l b e permitte dt o cross-examin e the mabou t prio r conviction s tha t otherwis e woul db e inadmissible . Becaus e appellan t decide dt o exercis e he r

righ t no t t o testif y i n thi s case , sh e conclude s tha t th e evidenc e o f

he r previou s convictio n wa s irrelevan t an dconsequentl y it s admissio n "rendere dhe r Fift h Amendmen t

righ t no t t o testif y ineffective. " Th e Stat e argue s tha t

th e evidenc e o f

appellant' s previou s convictio n wa s admissibl e unde r

Rul e 404(b ) t o explai n wh y appellan t use dSkipwith' s nam e t o ge t a job . A t trial , th e Stat e presente dtestimon y tha t Davi dMcDavi dHond aperform scrimina l backgroun dcheck s befor e hirin g salespeopl e an dwoul dno t hav e offere dajo b t o appellan t

i f appellant' s crimina l recor dha dcom e t o light . Se e Tex . R . Evid . 404(b ) (evidenc e o f

extraneou s offense s ma y b e admissibl e fo r othe r purposes , "suc h a s proo f o f motive , opportunity , intent , preparation , plan , knowledge , identity , o r absenc e o f mistak e o r

accident") ; DeLaPaz v . State, 27 9S.W.3 d336 , 34 3 (Tex . Grim . App . 2009 ) (holdin g extraneou s offens e evidenc e nee dno t fi t withi n on e o f

th e laundry-lis t exception s i n Rul e 404 , bu t proponen t

o f evidence mus t

sho w arelevan t

non-characte r basi s fo r it s admission) . A s th e Stat e point s out , appellant' s exercis e o f he r Fift h Amendmen t

righ t agains t self-incriminatio n t o avoi ddiscussin g he r prio r conviction s doe s no t determin e whethe r

th e evidence ma y b e admissibl e throug h anothe r witness . Additionally , appellan t

cite s n o authoritie s i n suppor t o f he r argument , an dw e ar e awar e o f none . Accordingly , w e rejec t appellant' s argumen t

tha t th e tria l cour t

erre di n admittin g th e evidenc e o f her previou s convictio n o n th e asserte dFift h Amendmen t ground s an doverrul e appellant' s firs t issue . II . Sufficienc y o f

th e Evidenc e I n he r secon dissue , appellan t

contend s tha t

th e evidenc e i s insufficien t t o suppor t he r convictio n becaus e ther e wa s n o evidenc e tha t sh e acte dwit h inten t

t o har mo r defrau dDavi dMcDavi dHonda . I n alega l sufficienc y review , w e examin e al l th e evidenc e i n th e ligh t mos t favorabl e t o th e verdic t

t o determin e whethe r

arationa l trie r

o f fac t coul dhav e foun dth e essentia l element s o f

th e offens e beyon dareasonabl e doubt . Jackson v . Virginia, 44 3 U.S . 307 , 31 9 (1979) . Thi s standar do f revie w applie s t o case s involvin g bot h direc t an dcircumstantia l evidence . Clayton v . State, 23 5S.W.S d772 , 77 8 (Tex . Grim . App . 2007) . Althoug h w e conside r al l o f th e evidenc e presente da t trial , w e d o no t

substitut e ou r judgmen t

regardin g th e weigh t

an dcredibilit y o f

th e evidenc e fo r

tha t o f th e fac t 4finder . Williams v . State, 23 5 S.W.S d742, 75 0 (Tex . Grim . App . 2007) . W e presum e th e

jur y resolve dconflictin g inference s i n favo r o f th e verdict , an ddefe r t o tha t determination . Clayton, 23 5 S.W.S da t 778 . W e als o determin e whethe r th e necessar y inference s ar e reasonabl e base dupo n th e combine dan dcumulativ e forc e o f al l th e evidenc e whe n viewe di n th e ligh t mos t favorabl e t o th e verdict . Id. Appellan t

wa s charge dwith intentionall y an dknowingl y presentin g a governmenta l record , namely , th e Texa s Departmen t o f Publi c Safet y temporar y drivin g permit , with knowledg e o f it s falsit y and , further , tha t he r action s wer e don e with th e inten t t o defrau do r

har manother . Se e Tex . Pena l Cod e § 37.10 . Th e additiona l requirement s tha t

a n accused' s action s involv e aspecifi c typ e o f documen t

an dwer e don e with th e inten t cc t o defrau do r

har manother " elevat e th e felon y fro mthir ddegre e t o secon ddegree . Id. § 37.10(c)(2)(A) . Neithe r th e Pena l Cod e no r

th e court' s charg e define s what i t mean s t o "defraud " another. 1 Appellant , citin g generall y t o tw o dictionaries , argue s tha t t o b e convicted , sh e ha dt o hav e intende dt o eithe r har msomeon e o r

"t o tric k o r cheat the mou t

o f money. " Applyin g thi s definition , appellan t contend s tha t

n o evidenc e establishe s tha t sh e defraude dth e dealershi p ou t o f money . Generally , undefine dstatutor y term s ar e t o b e understoo da s ordinar y usage allows , an djuror s ma y freel y rea dstatutor y languag e t o hav e an y meanin g whic h i s acceptabl e i n commo n parlance . Clinton v . State, 35 4 S.W.3 d795 , 80 0 (Tex . Grim . App . 2011) . Consisten t

with thi s genera l rule , th e State argue da t closin g tha t

th e juror s wer e entitle dt o us e thei r commo n sens e whe n determinin g what th e undefine dter m "defraud " meant . Further , court s hav e recognize dtha t "inten t t o defraud " ha s bee n Althoug h "defraud " wa s undefined , th e court' s charg e define d"harm " t o mea n "anythin g reasonabl y regarde da s loss , disadvantage , o r injury , includin g har mt o anothe r perso n i n whos e welfar e th e perso n affecte di s interested. " Se e Tex . Pena l Cod e § 1.07(a)(25) .define da s "th e inten t t o caus e anothe r

t o rel y upo n th e falsit y o f arepresentation , suc h tha t th e othe r perso n i s induce dt o ac t

o r t o refrai n fro macting. " Se e Wingo v . State, 14 3 S.W.3 d178 , 18 7 (Tex . App.—Sa n Antoni o 2004) , aff'd, 18 9 S.W.3 d27 0 (Tex . Grim . App . 2006) ; Martinezv . State, 6 S.W.S d674 , 67 8 (Tex . App.—Corpu s Christ i 1999 , n o pet.) . Therefore , w e disagre e with appellant' s suggestio n tha t th e ter m"defraud " mus t b e narrowl y define dt o requir e tha t th e defendan t

hav e intende dt o tric k o r cheat someon e ou t

o f money . T o suppor t

he r evidentiar y challenge , appellan t point s t o th e testimon y o f th e investigatin g office r

an dth e dealership' s controller . Th e office r testifie dthat

h e ha dn o knowledg e whethe r

th e dealershi p wa s harme do r defrauded , an dcommente dtha t suc h a questio n woul dhav e t o b e directe dt o th e peopl e a t th e dealership . Th e dealership' s controller , Michell e Norris , testifie dtha t appellan t

wa s hire da s asale s associate , sh e sol dcar s a t

th e dealership , an dsh e wa s pai dacommissio n fo r he r sales . Norri s als o testifie dtha t

t o he r knowledge , th e dealershi p ha dno t bee n harme do r

defrauded , no r di dth e dealershi p los e an y money . Consequently , appellan t argues , n o rationa l jur y coul dhav e foun dtha t

sh e wa s guilt y o f

th e charge doffense . Se e Geick v . State, 34 9 S.W.3 d542 , 54 8 (Tex . Grim . App . 2011 ) (defendan t indicte dfo r

thef t b y deceptio n acquitte dwhe n Stat e prove dappellan t committe dthef

t bu t faile dt o produc e an y evidence o f

deception) . Th e inten t

t o defrau do r

har manothe r

ma y b e establishe db y circumstantia l evidenc e suc h a s acts , words , an dth e conduc t o f appellant . Se e Guevara v . State, 15 2 S.W.3 d45 , 5 0 (Tex . Crim . App . 2004) ; Williams v . State, 68 8 S.W.2 d486 , 48 8 (Tex . Crim . App . 1985) . A s discusse dabove , appellan t ha dapreviou s crimina l convictio n a t th e tim e sh e applie dfo r

th e jo b with Davi dMcDavi dHonda . Norri s testifie dtha t Davi d McDavi dHond aperform s acrimina l backgroun dchec k o n al l applicant s fo r employment , an dthos e applicant s wh o hav e acrimina l backgroun dar e no t eligibl e fo remployment . Viewin g th e evidenc e i n th e ligh t mos t favorabl e t o th e verdict , th e jur y coul dhav e foun dtha t

appellan t intende dt o har mo r

defrau dDavi dMcDavi dHond ab y falsel y claimin g t o b e Jeann e Skipwit h t o induc e th e dealershi p t o rel y o n tha t fals e identit y t o offe r

he r employmen t

fo r whic h sh e woul dno t

hav e otherwis e bee n eligible. 2 Se e Tottenham v . State, 28 5 S.W.S d19 , 24-2 5 n.ll , 28-2 9 (Tex . App.—Housto n [1s t Dist ] 2009 , pet . re f

d ) (holdin g circumstantia l evidenc e supporte dconvictio n o f constabl e wh o presente dcounty judg e wit h falsifie dtrainin g certificate s t o maintai n hi s positio n eve n thoug h count y judg e testifie dtha t h e ha dno t

bee n personall y harme dan d th e count y ha dno t

bee n sue da s aresul t

o f th e constable' s actions) . Therefore , w e conclud e tha t th e evidenc e i s sufficien t t o suppor t

appellant' s convictio n an dw e overrul e appellant' s secon dissue . 

### CONCLUSIO N W e overrul e appellant' s issue s an daffir mth e tria l court' s judgment . /s / Ke n Wis e Justic e Pane l consist s o f

Justice s Boyce , Busby , an dWise . D o No t Publis h —TEX . R . APP . P . 47.2(b) .

2 Eve n acceptin g appellant' s propose ddefinitio n o f "defraud " t o mea n trickin g anothe r ou t o f money , th e jur y coul dhav e conclude dtha t gettin g ajob—whic h pay s money—unde r fals e pretense s i s trickin g someon e ou t

o f money . I n thi s case , th e dealershi p pai dappellan t t o wor k a s asale s associate , apositio n sh e woul dno t

hav e obtaine dbu t

fo r he r deception . 7