NO. 07-08 -001 4-CR NO. 07-08 -001 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 B OC TOBER20, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ MY CA L AN TOIN E PO OLE, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 52 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF CO RYE L L COU NT Y; ND NOS. 18 335 & 183 36; HON. PHILLIP ZEIGLE R, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

_____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. My cal Ant oin e Pool e appea ls hi s c onv icti ons for th re e c ounts of fraudul ent fil ing of a f in a n cin g s ta tement and t hree c ounts of re tal iat ion

. In do ing so , he cl aims 1)the tr ial cou rte rr e d in ref using to quash th e indictm ent s and require the State to elect which charg es to proceed on b ecaus e f ra udul ent fil ing of a financ ing st atement and retal iat ion are in pari m ate ria , 2)the ev ide nce w as leg all y i nsuffici ent t o s ust ain hi s c onv icti ons becau se the financi ng sta tements w ere inc omplet e and inv ali d on thei r face, 3) theT he ev i dence at t r i al was t hat a t r ansm i t t i ng ut i l i t y was a per son pr i m ar i l yeng aged i n t he b usi ness 1 o f1 ) o p e r a tin g a r a ilr o a d , s u b w a y, s tr e e t ra ilw a y o rtr o lle y b u s , 2 ) tr a n s m itt in g c o m m u n ic a tio n s e le c tr o n ic a lly, el ect r om agnet i cal l y , orbyl i ght , 3) t r ansm i t t i ng goods bypi pel i ne orsewer , or 4) t r ansm i t t i ng orpr oduci ng a nd tr a n s m itt in g e le c tr ic ity, s te a m , g a s o rw a te r . N o tic e s o flie n s a g a in s t t r a n s m itt in g u tilit ie s d o n o t a u to m a tic a lly e x p i re i n fi v e y e a rs a s d o o th e r l i e n n o ti c e s . 2 evidence was leg ally

insuf f icient to sustain his convictions beca use th ere w as no ev iden ce that the v icti ms s uffered har m, and 4) the tr ial co urt er re d i n admi tti ng the tes ti m ony of W il li am Kentreg ardin g an e xtraneous offense. W e di sag re e and aff ir m the jud g ments. Back gr ound App ellantf iled two law suits in the United St ate s Distric tCourt for the W este rn Di str ict of Tex as. An drew Aus ti n, as U .S. Ma g is trate, re commended that both be dis mis sed as frivolo us, and Judg e Sam S par ks ac cept ed th e recommendati ons and dism issed th em . He also sanctio ned app ellantfor abu sing the legal system . Th erea f ter, Austin an d Sp a rks rec e ived no ti ce s o f UCC (Un ifo rm Co m m e rci a l Co d e ) st a te m e ntshav ing bee n f iled w ith the Secreta ry of Sta te’s of

f ice and indicat ing that ap pellan t had liens against prop erty of

the two men . One of

the notices alleged thatAustin, w ho was described as a “transm itting utility ,” ow ed him $ 37, 000 ,00 0. Ano the r alleged t hatS parks (w ho was also 1 desc ri bed as a “ transmi tti ng util ity ”)ow ed appell ant $4,000, 000. Both judg es lat er tes ti fied th a t n e it h e r o f

t h e m w a s a “tra n sm it ti n g ut ili ty” n o r ha d de a lin gs with ap p e lla n t t h ro u gh
w hic h the y

ow ed hi m money . Iss ue 1 - Fai

lur e to Quash Ind

ic tm ents Appel lan t soug ht to quas h the indictmentsin part or req uire the Sta te t o el ectupon w hic h c harg es to t ry

hi m by contendi ng that he coul d notbe t ri ed for both fraudul ent fil ing of a f inan cing statem entand retaliation . B e c a u s e t he trial cou rt ref used to do so , it suppo sedl y

er re d. W e di sag re e and ov er ru le the p oin t.3

Th e d o ct r i n e o f in par

i m ater ia appl ies w hen one sta tute deal s w it h a s ubj ectmatte r in ge n e ra l t e rm s a n d a n o t h e r d e a ls wit h t h e sa m e su bje ctm a tt e r i n a m o re sp e c if icwa y. W h e n t h o s e s t a t u t e s c o n fl i ct , t h e mo re d e t a i l e d n o r ma l l y c o n t ro l s. Sta te v . Va si las, 253 S.W .3d 2 68, 2 72 ( Tex. Crim . Ap p. 20 08) , citi ng 53 T EX .J UR .2 D Statutes §18 6 (196 4). Addi ti onal ly , t he c oncep t app li es onl y i f the two sta tutes hav e the same p ur pose or obj ect

. Bur ke v. State, 28 S. W .3d 545 , 547 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00). Such a conf lict also ma y arise
w here the vi ola ti on of

one car ri es a less er

rang e of puni shmentthan the other

. Azeez v. State, 248 S.W .3d 182 , 1 9 3 ( T e x. C rim . App . 200 8). But, th e ha ppe nsta nce th at an act ma y fall w ithin th e para me ters of b oth o f fense s d oes notnece ssarily make the sta tute s in par i m ater ia. See Cul

lenv. Sta te, 832 S. W .2d 7 88, 7 92 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1992, pet. ref’d) (s tati ng th at t he fact that both the c ri minal mis chi ef stat ute a nd th e s tatut e prohi bit ing de s ec rat i on o f v en erat ed o bj ects c ou l d c on c ei v ab l y c ov er t he s am e pe rs on and the s am e proper ty does req uire tha t t hey

be c onsi dered in pari m ate ria ). Acc ordin g to appel lan t, the s ubj ectst atute s a t bar are in par

i m ater ia and , beca use the p uni shment s d iffer, h e s houl d hav e been tr ied for retal iat ion onl y . W e di sag re e. In de term ining w het her the two stat ute s serv e a com mo n purp ose, w e look at such i nd i c i a as w he th er 1)t he y a re c on ta i ne d i n th e s am e l eg i s l at i v e act, 2 ) t he y h av e th e s am e ele ments, 3) they involv e different penal ti es, and 4) they w ere cl ear ly w ri tten to achi ev e the same o bje cti v e. Bur

ke v. State, 28 S. W .3d a t 548

. Fraudul entl y

fil ing a financi ng statementoccurs w hen a person know ing ly present s fo r f il in g o r c a u s e s t o b e p re s e n t e d fo r f il in g a f in a n c in g s t a t e m e n tt h a tt h e p e rs o n kn o ws is groundl ess or knows that itcontai ns a m ater ial , fals e statement

. T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN .Sect i on 9

. 5185( c) of t he Busi ness a nd Com m er ce Code st at es t hat a per son m aybe pr osecut ed f or 2 fr a u d u l e n t fi l i n g o f a fi n a n c i n g s ta te m e n t u n d e r § 3 7 .1 0 1 o f th e P e n a l C o d e . T EX . B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN . § 9 .5 1 8 5 (c ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ). 4 §37 .10 1(a)(2) & (3) ( Verno n 20 03). S u c h a n of fense is a C lass A misde me ano r subject to be comi ng a s tate jai l felony i f the person commi tted the o f fe n se w it h the i ntentto defraud or

har m anothe r. Id. §37. 101( b)

. On t he ot her hand, the offense of ret alia ti on occ urs w hen a person int enti onal ly or know ing ly

harms or threatens to har m anothe r by an unla wf ul act in retaliat ion for o r o n acco untof the victim’s serv ice or statu s as a pub lic ser v ant. Id. §36.06( a) (1 ) (V er non Supp. 2008)

. Nor mall y , the offense cons ti tutes a felo ny of the th ird deg re e. Id. §36.06( c)

. W e initiallynote thatthe two prov isions w ere no t ena cted a t the sa me t ime

. W hile that re lat ing to re tal iatio n wa s e nact ed i n 1973, thatper tai nin g to fraudul ent fin anci ng state me nts beca me e f

fective in 199 7. O f

f urthe r im port is that th e elem ent s of each dif fer, as do the ir respe ctiv e pun ishm ent s. And , accord ing to comm ent s, it w as ena cted to prot ect peopl e from ha ra ss ment and i nti midat ion by othe rs . See T EX . B US . & C OM . C OD E A NN . §9.5185 cmt. (V er non 2002)

. On the other hand, the focus of t he re ta lia ti o n statut e 2 appears t o be on the need to cur tai l attac ks ag ain st publ ic ser v ants re lat ed to thei r act s a s suc h s er v ants

. B a s e d o n t h e fo re go in g c ir c u m s t a n c e s a n d d i f fe r e n c e s , we d o n o tf in d t h e two sta tutes to be in pari m ate ria

. S e eS e g u r a v . S ta te, 100 S.W .3d 6 52, 6 56 ( Tex . Ap p.– Dal las 2003, no pet.)(hol din g that harass ment and st alk ing are not in pari m ate riabeca use in st a lk in g t h e vi c t i m ’s fe a r i s a tis s u e a n d h a ra s s m e n tis b ro a d e r, t h e o f fe n s e s in vo lve differen t pen alties, th e elem ent s are dif feren t, an d the legi slative enactm ent s w eigh againstA p p e lla n t d o e s c ite § 9

. 5 0 2 ( a ) o fth e T e x a s B u s in e s s a n d C o m m e r c e C o d e a s s u p p o r t f o rh is 3 ar gum ent

. However , t hat st at ut e di scl oses t hat a f i nanci ng st at em ent i s “su ff i ci ent ” i fi t cont ai ns t he sp eci f i ed i n fo rm a ti o n . T EX . B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN . §9. 502( a) ( Ver non 2002)

. I n ot her w ord s , the do cum ent m ust cont ai n t he r equi si t e i nf or m at i on t o sat i sfy t he cr i t er i a f or cr eat i ng a l i en. T he Pena l C ode say s not hi ng a bout th e n e e d fo r a l i e n to a ris e b e fo re § 3 7 .1 0 1 a p p l i e s . 5 findi ng othe rw is e)

. Therefore, t he tr ial co urt di d not err in refusi ng to str ik e por ti ons of the ind ictments

. Iss ue 2 - Legal

Suf fici ency of Fr audulent F

il ing In hi s s econd i ss u e, ap pel lan t c hal len g es the l eg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce to show that he f iled f raud ulen t f inan cing statem ent s beca u s e t h ose sta tem ent s w ere pur por tedl y i nv ali d on thei r faces. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. Appel lan t c it es u s to n o th ing i n §37. 101 of the Penal C ode t hat req uires the s t a t e m e n t s t o b e v a l i d o r a p p e a r va li d t o a “k n o wle d ge a b le p e rs o n . ” No r d id o u r o wn 3
re v iew of the p ro v is ion di sc los e the ex is tenc e of suc h el ements

. Rat her , the Stat e need onl y prov e tha t t he ac cus ed k now ing ly filed a financ ing st atement that he k new to be fals e, forg ed, o r g ro undl ess . Issue s 3 and

4 - Harm In hi s thi rd and fourth is sues , app ell ant c lai ms t he ev ide nce is l eg all y i nsuffici ent t o suppo rthi s c onvicti o n s b ecaus e not hin g i ll ust ra ted t hat e it her Spar ks or

Aus ti n s uffered harm . W e overrule the issue s. W ith rega rd t o the retaliation convictions, bot h the pertine nt sta tute and jury ins tr uct ion s d esc ri bed t he m ens re a requirem entas inten tiona lly or know ingly

harm s “or” threatens to har m. T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . §36 .06 (a) (Vernon Su pp. 200 8). Th us, th e jury did not hav e to find that eithe r v icti m w as actu all y harmed. It coul d hav e simpl y found t hat appe l l a n t i n t e n t i o n a l l y o r k n o w i n g l y t h re a t e n e d t o h a r m t h e m. A n d , a p p e l l a n t fai ls to6

suggest that th e evidence w as legally insuf f icient to prove he s o t h reate ned the jud ges. So, his presentco mplai nt ha s n o effectupon the retal iat ion co nv icti ons. As for th e fraudu len t fil ing co nv icti ons, the re cord c ontai ns ev ide nce il lus trati ng that Spar ks i ncur re d s ome monetar y ex pen se (t houg h mi nimal ) in effort t o amel iorate appel lan t’ s i ll eg al condu ct. So too is there ev ide nce that appel lan t’ s c onduct al so caus ed both jud g es to ex pend t ime from w or k and suffer angui sh and ir ri tati on. The Penal C ode does not req uire tha t t he har m cont emplat ed be pecun iar y or physi cal ; ag g ra v ati on and the los s o f time h as been he ld to c ause suffici ent d is adv antag e to cons ti tute har m for pur poses of the c ri mes. Hal

ay v. State, No. 03- 07- 0327- CR , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. L E X IS 9711 at * 20- 21 (Tex . Ap p. - Aust in De cember 31, 2008, no pet .) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ; W hite v. State, N o. 14 -0 5- 0454- CR , 200 6 T e x. Ap p. L E X IS 8396 at * 6 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 th Di st. ] Se ptember

28, 2006, pet. re f’d) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. Issue 5 - Extraneo us Offe nse In his final i ss ue, a ppel lan t c omplai ns of the tr ial co urt’ s a dmis si on i nto e v ide nce of the t est imony

of W ill ia m K e nt, a c onv icted fel on. The ev ide nce pur por tedl y w as ina dmis si ble under

Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce 404( b) and 403. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. T he te stimo ny in question inv olved Kentdescribing how app ellanto f fered to assist Ken t’s g irlfriend and her mo the r to av oid a foreclosu re p rocee ding. T he a ssistance would com e in the natu re of

transferring the mortgage to Spa rks by f iling a cop y rig ht lien against that jud g e. Kent als o re lat ed how appel lan t represent ed th at he had done t his before as a me an s o f ret al i at i ng a g ai ns t Sp ar k s a nd A us ti n be c au s e of t he i r r ul i ng s a g ai ns t hi m.7

Ev ide nce of an extraneous offense is admi ss ibl e under R ule 404(b ) a s p ro of of mo tiv e, op portu nity, i nte nt, p repa ration , plan , knowledge, iden tity, or abse nce of mistake or ac ci dent. T EX . R. E V ID . 404( b)

. The tr ia l co u rta d mitt ed th e tes ti mony i n q uest ion as evidence of

m otive o r intent. And, giv en its prop ensity to illustrate tha t app ellantnot on ly int ended t o har m or

defraud hi s v icti ms by

fil ing the sta tements but als o acted i n retal iat ion ag ain st Spar ks a n d A u st in for t hei r ser v ic e as publ icse rv ants , we c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial courtd id n ot ab use its discretio n in overruling the ground . Th is is espe cially so since appel lan t prev iou sl y

had deni ed th at he so ug ht t o retal iat e ag ain st Spar ks

. Nor w as the d e cis io n t o ov er ru le appel lan t’ s 4 03 obj ect ion an i nst ance of abused dis cre ti o n . T his i s s o bec ause the e v ide nce both il lus trated appel lan t’ s mot iv e and cont ra dicted h is tes ti mony sug g est ing that he w as not acti ng out of ret ali ati on. W e furt her note that present ing the ev ide nce did not tak e up an i nordin ate a mount of ti me, and the jur y w as ins tr uct ed th at i t c oul d onl y be c onsi dered fo r p u rp o se s o f motiv e and int ent. Con seq uentl y , we c annot say thati ts probati v e v alu e was subs tanti all y outweig hed by

i ts all eg ed l ik eli hood t o undul y preju dic e appel lan t or

co nfuse the j urors. In s um, we ov er ru le all of appel lan t’ s i ss ues and affirm the j udg ments.

Pe r C ur i am Do not p ubl is h.