NO. 07-07 -037 5-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C AU GU ST 14, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JAMES W ADE HOLL EY, APPEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 ND DI ST RI CT COU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; NO . B 16028- 0505; HO NO RA BLE E D SELF , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON F o ll o win g a p le a o f

n o t gu il ty, A p p e ll a n t , J a m e s W a d e Ho ll e y, wa s co n vic t e d b y a ju ry o f t h e f ta n d p u n is h m e n twa s a s s e s s e d a te ig h t e e n m o n t h s in a st a t e ja il fa c il it y. Presen ting a sole issue, Ap pellan t ma intain s t h e e v iden ce is insuf f icient to sustain his conviction. W e reverse and rend er a judgme nt of acquittal.W hen t he c heck w as re tur ned to Kernel l, it w as stamped byAppell ant’ s b ank w it h 1 a not ati on th at t he ac countw as cl osed; howev er , no ev ide nce w as present ed as to w hen the accou nt w as closed
. At a pretrial hea ring to det ermin e the adm issibility of the che ck, Appel lan t arg ued t hat t he not ati on was hearsay and the t ri al cour

t ag re ed and ru led that “a cc ount cl osed” be redact ed as i nadmis si ble hearsay . 2 Back ground Facts On March 14 , 200 5, Ap pellan t and Bobb y Kerne ll, o wn e r o f

K erne ll Auto Sa les, entered i nto a n ag re ement for the sal e of an aut omobil e. Appel lan t ag re ed to m a ke a dow n pay ment of $2,200 for an automobi le pr ic ed at $6,995 and Ker nel l ag re ed to extend him credi t for the b ala nce. Ap pel lan t i ss ued a chec k t o “K e rn ell Aut o Sal es” for $ 2,200. He als o c omplet ed a credi t app li cat ion w it h bas icco ntact informati on, inc lud ing his phone number and some referenc es w it h phone numbers. A few days a fter Ke rn e ll depos it ed Appel lan t’ s c heck , i t was re tur ned t o Ker nel l unpai d. 1 K e r n e l l m a d e n u me ro u s p h o n e c a l l s t o A p p e l l a n t a n d o n e o f h i s re fe re n c e s t o n o t i fy Appel lan t of the re tur ned c heck , t o no av ail
. Acc ordin g to Ker nel l, no o ne ans w ered ei ther pho ne. Ev ent ually, Ke rnell co nta cted A ppe llant’s mo the r who provi ded a possible add ress w here the car mig ht be locat ed. Ker nel l loc ated the car and re poss ess ed i t. H e c ontacted the d ist ri ct attor ney ’s off ic e reg ardin g the matter and w as v is it ed by

an i nv est ig ator

w ho docu me n t e d the of

fense and turned it ov er to the district attorne y ’s of f ice for intake procedu re s. Appel lan t was lat er i ndi cte d for theft of

proper ty va lue d at $1,500 or

more but les s t han $20 ,000, a s tate jai l felony
.3

By his sole issue, Appe llant cha llen ge s t h e s uf f iciency of

the evidence to supp ort his conviction. Altho ugh his issue is f ra m ed a s a factu al suf f iciency challen ge, his argume nt is co uche d in term s o f “no e v iden ce” t o supp ort his conviction and b y his pray er, he a lterna tiv ely requests an acquittal. Th us, in the interest o f justice and as guided by Rule 3 8
. 9 o f t h e T e xa s Ru le s o f

A p p e ll a t e P ro c e d u re t o li b e ra ll y co n s t ru e b ri e f in g r u l e s , we int er pret Appel lan t’ s cont enti on as a c hal len g e to both the l eg al and factu al suffici ency of the ev iden ce. W e agree w ith App ellantthatthe evidence is l egally insuf f icient to supp ort his co nv icti on for theft. St and ard o f Rev iew-L egal Su ff icien cy W hen b oth t he legal and factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence are challen ged, w e mu st firs t det er mine w hether the ev ide nce is leg all y su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he v erdict. Clewis v. State , 922 S.W .2d 126, 133 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
. It is a fundamental r ule of cri minal l aw that one c annot be conv icted o f a cr ime unl ess i t i s s how n beyond a re asona ble doubtthat the d efendant committ ed each el ement of the al leg ed offense. U. S. C onst . amend. X IV; Tex . C ode Cr im. Proc. Ann. art. 38.03 (V er non Supp. 2007) ; Tex
. Penal Cod e Ann. § 2.0 1 (V er non 200 7)
. Ev ide nce is l eg all y

i nsuffici ent i f, w hen v ie wed i n a lig ht mos t fav orabl e to the prose cution , a r a t iona l trier of fact cou ld nothave fo und each elem entof the of fense bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 318, 99 S. Ct . 278 1, 27 89, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560, 573 (1979 ); H o o p e r v . S ta te , 2 1 4 S .W .3 d 9 , 1 3 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). Th isUnl ess othe rw is e not ed, a ll secti on referenc es herein are referen ces to Tex . Pe nal 2 Code Ann. (Vernon Supp . 200 7). 4 s ta n d a rd is t h e sa m e in b o th d ire c t a n d cir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e ca s e s . I d. Le ga l suff i ci en cy of t he ev i den c e t o s us t ai n a c onv i c t i on i s m eas ur ed byt he el em ent s of t he of f ens e a s d e fin e d b y a h yp o th e ti c a ll y c o rr e c t ju ry ch a rg e . M a lik v
. S ta te , 95 3 S
. W
. 2d 234 , 23 9- 40 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). This i s d one by co nsi der ing al l the e v ide nce that w as before t he jury —w het her proper or imp rope r—so tha t w e can make an assessm ent f rom t h e ju ry's perspecti v e. Mi

les v. Sta te , 918 S.W .2d 5 11, 5 12 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) . As an appel lat e court, w e ma y

not s ita s a thirtee nth juror, but m ust up hold the jury's v erdict un less it is ir ra ti onal or unsup por

ted by more than a “mere modi cum” of ev ide nce. Mo re no v. St ate , 755 S. W .2d 8 66, 8 67 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1988)
. Discus sion Und er t h e i n d i ct me n ti n t h i s c a s e , t h e S t a t e wa s re q u i re d t o p ro v e t h a tAppel lan t unl aw fully appropr ia te d pro p e rty, to -wit: an au to m o b ile , b y acqu irin g or o ther w is e exerci si ng cont ro l ov er

that proper

ty , the v alu e of

w hic h was more than $1,500 but l ess than $20, 000, w it hout th e effect iv e c onsen t of the ow ner , Bo bby Ker nel l, and w it h i ntentto depr iv e the owner of the property. T o “app ropriate ” property mean s to acquire or othe rw ise exercise cont rol ov er thatprope rty . Te x . Pen al Code Ann. § 31.0 1(4)(B) (Vernon Supp . 200 7). 2 Appropr iat ion of

p ro p e rt y

i s u nla wful i f it is w it hout the e ffect iv e c onsen t of the ow ner . § 31.03( b) (1 ). C onsen t is not effect iv e i f it is i nduce d by dec epti on or

co erci on. §5

31. 01( 3) ( A)
. D ec ep ti on me an s c rea ti ng or c on fi r mi ng by words or c on du ct a false impress ion of law

or fact t hat i s l ik ely

to affectthe jud g ment of another in the transacti on, and t hat t he actor

does not bel iev e to be tr ue; o r, p ro mis ing per formance that is l ik ely

to affectthe jud g ment of

a n o th e r in the transacti on and that the a cto r does not i ntend to perform o r otherwi se kno ws wil l n ot be performe d. § 31.0 1(1)(A) and (E). How ever, mere failure to p erform th e prom ise in issue, w it h o u to the r ev iden ce of inten t or knowl edge, is not s uff ic ien t proof that the a cto r did not int end t o per form or knew the promis e woul d not be p erforme d. § 31 .01 (1)(E). W h e t h e r a t h e f

th a s o c c u rre d is d e t e rm in e d a tt h e t im e o f t h e t a k in g o f t h e p ro p e rt y. See D owns v

. St ate , 81 Tex .C ri m. 160, 194 S.W .138 (1 917) ( “[ i] f t he or ig ina l tak ing w as law ful, no fals e pretext bei ng us ed, a co nv icti on bas ed upon a s ubseq uent appropr iat ion w il l not b e s ust ain ed unde r an ordin ar y i ndi ctmentfor t h e ft.” ). See al so Spar ks v. Sta te , 131 Tex .C ri m. 37, 95 S. W .2d 7 04, 7 06 ( 1935)( “i t mus t be show n tha t t he ac cus ed, w hen he too k p o ss e ss ion of the [ proper ty], int ended t o depr iv e the ow ner of the v alu e of the same, the p ro of of

w hic h rest ed u p on th e St ate, and i t was inc umbent u pon t he St ate t o esta blish it beyond a reaso nab le dou bt”). In other words, th e inte nt to dep riv e mu st exi st a t th e t im e the proper

ty i s o btai ned, Dr

aper v. Sta te , 5 3 9 S
. W
. 2 d 6 1 , 6 9 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p. 1976) , and i t mus t be deter mined from the words, a ct s, a n d c onduct of the acc used. Bank s v . St ate , 471 S.W .2d 811 , 812 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 1).6

There is no d oubt that the State prov ed Appell ant acq uired or othe rw is e exerci sed cont ro l ov er

the automobi le in q uest ion or thatthe v alu e of the proper ty w as at leas t $1, 500 becau se Appel lan t t ook posse ss ion of the a utomobi le and made a dow n pay ment of $2,200. Lik ew is e, there is no doubt that Appel lan t acq uired the p ro per ty w it h the co nsent of the owner be cause t he acquisition of t he p rope rty

came abo ut in the conte xt of a sale of that p ro per

ty
. The di sput ed i ss ues w ere w hether thatco nsentwas ind uced by dec epti on (a nd th erefore no t effe ctive ) and w hether Appel lan t had the int ent to depr iv e the o w ner of th e pro p e rty at t h e tim e of th e ta kin g. Consent of Ow ner Induced by Deception The Stat e reli es on Rowl and v . St ate , 744 S.W .2d 610 , 612 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 8), in suppo rtof it s a rg ument t hat A ppel lan t “ g ain ed per mis si on to hav e th e ve hic le by decep ti on, t he bad check.” In Rowl and , t he defendant, a for mer employee of the compl ain ant, ask ed to bor ro w the compl ain ant’ s tr uck to do temporar

y pai nti ng wor k. The compl ain ant agre e d o n the co ndi ti on th at t he tr uck be retur ned w it hin three days. The defendant nev er

retur ned t he tr uck

and the compl ain ant dis cov ered that the defendant had falsel y represent ed th e reason for b or ro w ing i t. The c omplain a n t h a d contacted t he ind iv idu als w hom the defendant had represent ed he woul d be doi ng pai nti ng wor k for and l e a r n e d t h a tn o wo r k i n g a r ra n g e me n t s ev er ex is ted. Id . at611. The t ru ck w as lat er re tr iev ed i n poor

co ndi ti on and the d efendant was conv icted o f theft.Af ter App ellantprese nte d his defense , the State requested a contin uan ce to call 3 a rebutt al w it ness to tes ti fy that the a cc ount on w hic h Appell ant w ro te t he c heck had been cl osed. The tr ial cour

t deni ed the req uestex pla ini ng thatthe Stat e had ample oppor tuni ty to ha v e a w it ness av ail abl e. 7 W e di sag re e w it h the Sta te t hat R owland i s s imi lar

to the u nder ly ing ca se. I n Rowl and , the defend antg aine d the conse nto f t h e o w ner thro ugh false repre sent ation s, i. e., by d e c e p t i o n . I n t h i s c a s e , A p p e l l a n t g a i n e d t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e o w n e r t h ro ug h a promis e to pay . The fact t hat t he c heck tend ere d for t he dow n pay ment went u npai d, w it hout other

ev ide nce of in te n t o r know led g e, i s i nsuffici ent t o prov e Appe ll ant d id not int end t o per

form or kn ew the promis e woul d notbe p er formed. The Stat e nev er present ed any ev ide nce as to why

the chec k went u npai d and did not presentany ev ide nce of de c ep ti on on A pp el l an t’ s p ar t. F ur th er mo re, t he S ta te o ffered n o ev i de nc e th ata t th e ti me of the ta ki ng , Ap pel lan t k new he was is sui ng a c heck on a cl osed acc ount. 3 The ev ide nce est abl is hed t hat K er nel l and Ap pel lan t ent ered int o a fin anci al arrangem entw here in App ellantagreed to ma ke a down p aymen t for one -third of the sale price and Kerne ll ag reed to f inan ce the bal ance . Th at th e che ck was return ed u npa id w it hout ev ide nce of w hy the chec k was not honored did not est abl is h that Ker nel l’ s c onsen t w as procured th ro ug h dec epti o n . B ased on th e ev ide nce present ed to the jur y , w hen v iew ed in a light m ost favorable to th e prose cution , w e con clude thata rationa l trier of fact coul d nothav e found beyond a re asona ble doubtthatAppel lan t i nduce d Ker nel l’ s c onsen t by dec epti on.8 I n t e n tt o D e p r i ve In Rowl and, the a ppel lan t c hal len g ed hi s c onv icti on b y a rg uin g the ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t t o prov e he int ended to depr iv e the ow ner of his proper ty
. 744 S. W .2d a t 612
. In affir ming hi s c onv icti on, t he C our t found t he foll ow ing ev ide nce demonst ra ted a n i ntent to de pr iv e:

C the defend antdid notreturn the truck;
C the d efendant nev er co ntacted t he ow ner ; and
C th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e de fe n d a n t o b ta in e d th e tru ckwa s t h ro u gh decep ti on. Id. at 61 3. The Co urt det er mined that the j ur y could hav e inferred that w hen t he defendant obtai ned t he ow ner ’s tr uck , he unl awfully appropr iat ed i t, w hic h c oul d hav e been cons tr ued as ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce of an i ntentto depr iv e. Id. In this case, no ev ide nce w as pre sent ed that Appell ant knew that the ac counthad been c los ed or

thathe g av e fals e informati on on hiscredi t appli cat ion
. Beca use Appel lan t w a s n e v e r

c o n t a ct e d b y K e r n e l l t o i n fo r m h i m t h a th i s c h e c kh a d b e e n re t u r n e d , w e a re l e ft to spe culate as to w het her or nothe w ould have cont acte d Kern ell or returned the vehicle once he k new . A lt h o u gh Ker nel l tes ti fied he made numerous phone c all s t o a p hone number prov ide d on Appel lan t’ s credi t appl ic ati on, he conc eded that all cal ls w ere pl aced dur in g n o rmal wor ki ng hours w hen Ap pel lan t may not hav e been home. Ker nel l further tes ti fied th at he nev er cont act ed Appel lan t by mail
. In sum, the Stat e did not presentanyBeca use the i ss ue i s n ot be fore us , we ex press n o opi nio n as to w hether or not 4 Appel lan t mi g ht hav e been prosec uted under § 31 .07 for

unaut hor iz ed us e of a v ehi cl e, or § 32. 41( a) for i ss uin g a ba d c heck
. 9 ev ide nce to show

that at the t ime Appel lan t and Ker nel l entered i nto a n ag re ement for the s a le o f t h e a u t o m o b i l e , A p p e l la n t , b y h is wo rd s , a ct s , a n d co n d u ctin t e n d e d t o d e p ri ve Ker nel l of his proper

ty . Acc ordin g ly , the State did not es tabl is h beyond a re asona ble doubt that w hen Ap pel lan t drov e the auto mobil e of f K e rn ell ’s l ot, a the ft w as commi tted. 4 Appel lan t’ s i ss ue i s s ust ain ed. Conclusion Hav ing conc lud ed that the e v ide nce is l eg all y i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t t he c onv icti on, w e ne ed n ot ad dress the factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence . A ccordingly , the trial court’s jud g ment i s rev ersed and a jud g ment of ac q uittal i s h ereby rendered.
Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Do not p ubl is h.