No. PD-0070-15

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

DONALD LYNN RAMSEY, Appellant a/k/a DONALD LYNN RAMSAY

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from Swisher County

* * * * *

STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

* * * * *

LISA C. McMINN State Prosecuting Attorney Bar I.D. No. 13803300

STACEY M. GOLDSTEIN Assistant State Prosecuting Attorney Bar I.D. No. 24031632

P.O. Box 13046 Austin, Texas 78711 information@spa.texas.gov 512-463-1660 (Telephone) 512-463-5724 (Fax) PD-0070-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 1/29/2015 9:18:34 AM Accepted 1/29/2015 3:24:42 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKTAB LE OF CO NTE NTS

IDENTITY OF J UDGE, PAR TIES, AND C OUNSEL..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

INDEX OF AUT HOR ITIES.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

STATEM ENT R EGAR

DING OR

AL AR GUME NT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATEM ENT OF TH E C ASE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

STATEM ENT OF PR OCE DUR AL HISTOR

Y.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

STATEM ENT OF FAC TS.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

GRO UND FOR

RE VIEW

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Doe s an appel late co urt giv e prope r defe re nce to a jury’s forg er y finding of intent to defr au d or harm w hen it fails to co nside r the totali ty of the ev ide nce and
ra tional infer enc es ther efr om ?

ARG UME

NT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

PRAYE R FOR

RE LIEF.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

CE RT IFICATE OF C OMPLIANC E.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CE RT IFICATE OF SER

VICE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
APPENDIX (Opin ion

of th e Co urt of A ppe al s)

iIDE NTI TY OF JUDG E, PART IE S, AND CO UNSEL

* The pa

rtie s to the tria l co ur t’s ju dgm en t are the Sta te of Te xa s an d Appe lla nt, Dona ld L y nn R am se y

a /k/ a Dona ld L y nn R am sa

y

.

* The tria l Ju dge wa s Hon . Edwa rd Le e Sel f.

* Co un se l f

or the Sta te at tria l an d be fore the Co urt of Appe al s wa s Swish er Co unt y Att orne y J. Mi ch ae l Cri swe ll, 119 South Ma xwe ll, Tuli a, Te xa s 7908 8.

* Co unse l f

or th e Sta te be fore the Co urt of Cri m ina l Appe al s is Sta ce y M. Gold ste in, Assi sta

nt Sta te Prose cu tin g Att orne y , P.O. Bo x 1304 6, Aust in, Te xa s 7871 1.

* Co unse l for Appe lla nt at tria l wa s Ti na D av is-R inc one s, 109 Ea st 6th Stree t, Pla inv ie w, Te xa s 79 072.

* Co unse l for Appe lla nt be fore the Co urt of Appe al s wa s Troy Bo lli nge r, 600 Ash Stree t, Pla inv ie w, Te xa s 79 072.

iiINDE X OF AUT HO RIT IE S

Case s

Ja ck son v. Vir gin ia , 443 U.S. 30 7 (197 9).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 9

Ok onk wo v . St ate , 398 S.W .3d 6 89 (Te x. C rim . App . 201 2).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Rams ey v. Sta te , No. 07-14-0 0249- CR, 20 14 Te x. App. LEXIS 1351 9 (Tex

. App.— Am ari llo De c. 17, 201 4) (not de sig na te d for pu

bli ca tio n).

. . . . . . . . . 2, 4, 7

Stu eb ge n v . St ate , 547 S.W .2d 2 9 (Te x. C rim . App . 197 7).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

W ise v . St ate , 364 S.W .3d 9 00 (Te x. C rim . App . 201 2).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 n.2

Statute

T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 32 .21(b).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

iiiNo. PD-007 0-15

TO THE CO URT OF C RIM INAL APPEALS

OF THE STAT E OF TEXA S

DONALD LYNN R

AMSEY Appe lla nt a/ k/a DONALD LYNN R

AMSAY,

v.

THE STAT E OF TEXA S, Appe lle e

Appe al from

Swish er C ount

y

* * * * *

STAT E’S PE TI TI ON FOR DISCRE TI ONA RY RE V IE W

* * * * *

TO THE HONOR

ABL E C OUR T OF C RIM INAL APPEALS:

The Sta te Prose cu tin g At torne y res pe ct fully

urge s th is C ourt t o gra

nt re vie w.

STAT EM ENT RE GAR DING OR AL ARG UM ENT

The Sta te doe s no t re que st o ral a rgum en t.

1STAT EM ENT OF TH E C ASE

A jury co nvi ct ed Appe lla

nt of forgery of a ch ec k by pa ssi ng, en ha nc ed be ca use

it wa s co m

m itt ed ag ai nst an el de rly pe rson, and se nt en ce d him to six y ea rs’

im priso nm en t a

nd a sse sse d a

$1,0 00 fin e.

STAT EM ENT OF PRO CED URAL HI STO RY

Ove r a dis se nt, the co urt of ap pe al s reve rse d the tria l co urt’ s jud gmen t an d

en te red a jud gm en t of ac qui tta l. Ramsey v. State , No. 07-14-0 0249 -CR , 2014 Te x. App. LEXIS 1351 9 ( Te x. A pp

. —Am ari llo De c. 17, 2014 ) (not de sig na te d for
publ ic at ion ). The Sta

te did not se ek reh ea ring.

STAT EM ENT OF FACT S

Ba ck gr ound
Eigh ty -four-y ea

r-old Jim m ie Owe ns an d his son Je d owne d Owe ns Mot or

Ma ch ine

. 1 RR 131. Appel la nt w orke d for the Owe ns’ for four to five m ont hs an d

liv ed at the busi ne ss’ s shop

. 1 RR 103 , 13 3. Je d ty pic al ly pa rked his work-truc k

ins ide the shop in the ev en ing s an d le ft it unl oc ke d. 1 RR 134-35

. Je d ke pt the

busi ne ss’ s ch ec kboo k in an ins ide poc ke t on one of the truc k’ s doors

. 1 RR 127, 134.

Bo th Jim m ie an d Je d we re sig na torie s on the ac co unt

. 1 RR 120, 131, 133-34

.
Jim m ie wa s lis te d as “ J.E. Owe ns,” an d Je d wa s lis te d as “ J.J. Owe ns.” 1 RR 121,
123, 132, 136. Jim

m ie usua lly sig ne d ch ec ks as “ J.E. Owe ns,” but som et im es sig ne d

2as “ Jim

m ie E. Owe ns.” 1 RR 123-24 , 136. Jim m ie al wa y s pa id Appe lla

nt by ch ec k 1

an d inc lud ed the not at ion “ co ntra ct la bor” on the m em o line. 1 RR 125, 127. The

Owe ns ha d prev iou sly giv en a ne ar by liq uor sto re pe rm iss ion to ca sh Appe lla nt’ s

pa y ch ec ks. 1 R

R 1 50.

In June 2013 , Appe lla

nt te nde red a $65 che ck pa y ab le to him from the Owe ns

Mot or Mac hin e ac co unt at the li quor s tore . Som e of the m one y wa s used for good s,

an d the rem ai nde r wa s giv en to Appe lla nt as ch an ge

. 1 RR 151-52

. The sig na ture on

the c he ck rea d “ Jim

E. Owe ns,” a nd “ Co ntra ct La bor” wa s writt en in t

he m em o li ne

.
1 R R 1 35; Sta te ’s Exhi bit

2.

Ne ith er Jim

m ie nor Je d ha d sig ne d or iss ue d the ch ec k to Appe lla nt. 1 RR 124,

136. Je d te sti fie d tha t Appe lla nt wa s the ir onl y em

plo y ee in June 2013 , as we ll as the

pr ec ed ing six m ont

hs. 1 RR 136. He al so be lie ve d tha t, wit h the ex ce pti on of hi s

fat he r, Appe lla

nt wa s the onl y oth er pe rson to ha ve ac ce ss to his truc k. 1 RR 136-38

.
Je d ac know le dge d tha t oth er pe opl e som et im es sto ppe d by the shop but sta ted th at

the y ty pic al ly jus t c al le d hi m . 1 R

R 1 39-40.

Jim m ie al so exp la ine d that he sig ne d che ck s with “ Jim m ie Owe ns” a long ti m e 1 ag o. 1 RR

129

. 3Cour t of Appeal s

A majo r it y of the co urt of ap pe al s he ld tha t the Sta te fai le d to prove tha t
Appe lla nt int en de d to de fraud or ha rm be ca use the re wa s no ev ide nc e tha t Appe lla nt

kne w the ch ec k wa s forged

. Rams ey , 2014 Te x. App. LEXIS 1351 9, at *6. It

requ ire d ev ide nc e of the num be r of ch ec ks prev iou sly writt en an d the na m e ap pe ari ng

on the sig na ture lin e be fore a jury co uld “ log ic al ly ” infe r tha t Appe lla nt kne w whe the r

the sig na ture wa s fake or ge nui ne

. Id

. at *7. The m aj ority al so co nc lud ed tha t
Appe lla nt’ s know le dge of the forgery ca nnot be infe rred from the fac t tha t it wa s not
sig ne d “ J.E. Owe ns.” Id

. at *6. Jim m ie te sti fie d tha

t he sig ne d ch ec ks usi ng “ Jim m ie

Owe ns” a nd “ Jim m ie E. Owe ns.” Id

.
The dis se nt m ai nta ine d tha t the ev ide nc e ci rcum sta nti al ly es ta

bli she d Appe lla

nt

kne w the ch ec k wa s forged

. Id

. at *12-13 (Prible , J., dis se nt ing). W he n Appe lla nt

pa sse d the ch ec k not ing “ Co ntra ct La bor” he infe rent ia lly repre se nte d it wa s giv en for

se rvic es rend ere d, but the ev ide nc e show ed tha t it wa s not giv en for se rvic es rend ere d.

Id

. at *12. Furthe r, Appe lla nt ha d ac ce ss to the ch ec kboo k an d pa sse d it at a pla ce he

kne w it woul d be hon ored

. Id

.

GRO UND FO R RE V IE W

Doe s an appel late co urt giv e prope r defe re nce to a jury’s forg er y finding of intent t o defr aud or harm w hen it fails to co nside r the totali ty of the ev ide n ce an d
ra tional infer enc es ther efr om ?

4ARG UM ENT

The co urt of ap pe al s’ co nsi de rat ion of the fac ts, an d rea sona ble infe renc es

draw n the refrom , wa s se ve rel y de fic ie nt. As a res ult , it fai le d to giv e prope r de fere nc e

to t he jury ’s de te rm ina tio n th at Appe lla nt k ne w th e ch ec k wa s forge d.

W he n r ev ie w ing the suffic ie nc y of the ev ide nc e, al l of the ev ide nc e is

co nsi de red in the lig ht m ost favo rabl e to the ve r di ct to de te rm ine whe the r, ba se d on

tha t e vid en ce a nd the rea sona ble infe renc es the refrom , th e fac tfind er wa s ju sti fie d in

findi ng guil t bey ond a rea sona ble do ubt

. Ja ck

son v. Virg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 318-19
(1979). The fac tfind er is the sol e jud ge of cre dib ili ty an d we igh t giv en to the ev ide nc e

an d is pe rm itt ed to draw m ult ipl e rea sona

ble infe renc es from fac ts whe n supp orte d by

the ev ide nc e Id . a t 31 9. W he n th ere a re c onfli ct ing infe renc es , it m ust be pres um ed

tha t t he fac tfind er re sol ve d th em in favo r of the ve rdic t. Id . a t 32 6.

Th e offens e of forgery inc lud es the el em en ts of int en t to de fraud or ha rm

an oth er. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 32.2 1(b). Proof of tho se el em en ts is es ta bli she d by

show ing tha t the ac tor knew the writi ng w as forged

. Ok onk wo v. Sta te , 398 S.W .3d
689, 695 (Tex . C rim . App . 201 2).

Givi ng prope r de fere nc e to the jury ’s gui lty ve rdic t, the Sta te sa tis fie d its burde n

to prove tha t A pp ella

nt kne w the ch ec k wa s forged be ca use the ev ide nc e firm ly

es ta bli she d th at

Appe lla nt forg ed the c he ck

.

5First, Appe lla nt wa s the be ne fic ia

ry

. The ch ec k wa s made out to Appe lla nt

dire ct ly , an d the re is no ev ide nc e tha t an y one el se woul d be m oti va te d to m ak e him

the be ne fic ia

ry

.
Sec ond, Appe llan t ha d unl im ite d ac ce ss to the ch ec kboo k be ca use he liv ed in

the shop whe re it wa s ke pt in an unl oc ke d truc k. Addi tio na lly , the ev ide nc e doe s not

supp ort an al te rnat ive pe rpet rat or the ory

. W hil e oth er em plo y ee s ha d be en in Je d’ s

truc k be fore, Appe lla

nt wa s the O w en s’ on ly em plo y ee in the four to six m ont hs

be fore the ch ec k wa s pa sse d. 1 RR 139-40

. Je d al so te sti fie d tha t m ost pe opl e ca lle d

him ins te ad of sto ppi ng by the shop

. 1 R R 1 39-40. And

be ca use he sto red the truc k

in the shop ove rnigh t, the lik el iho od tha t pe rsons who ente red the shop durin g

busi ne ss h ours h ad

a cc es s to the truc k is sli ght . 1 R R 1 34-35.

The forged ch ec k wa s cl ose en ough to show f am ili ari ty but im

prec ise en ough

to show it wa s forged

. Hav in g ha d r ec ei ve d ch ec ks from Jim m ie in the pa st,
Appe lla nt kne w the spe ci fic m an ne r in w hi ch he iss ue d his pa y ch ec ks. Thus , it

inc lud ed the pa

rtic ula r m em o-lin e not at ion “ Co ntra ct La bor.” Bu t the use of “ Jim E.

Owe ns” for the sig na ture , a sty le tha t wa s ne ve r use d by Jim m ie whe n iss uin g ch ec ks,

co nfirm s it

wa s no t ge nui ne

. Appe lla nt’ s choice of ve nue for ca shi ng the ch ec k is al so co nsi ste nt wit h his
forgery sc he m e. As t

he c ourt o f ap pe al s’ dis se nt o bse rved , he c as he d it a t the liq uor

6sto re b ec au se he kne w he woul d no t be sc rutin iz ed a nd t ha t i t wo uld

be hon ored

.
Fina lly , ev en if the ev ide nc e did not show tha t Appe lla nt wa s the forger, th e

ev ide nc e woul d none the le ss show he kne w it wa s forged

. As the dis se nt obse rved , Appe lla nt did not ac tua lly do an y w or k f or the Owe ns’ to wa rrant pa y m en t, so the

“ w in df all” pa y m en t for his la

bor is inex pli ca

ble , as is his acc ep ta

nc e of pa y m en t for

la bor no t pe rform ed

.
Unlik e the Cour t’s 1977 Stueb ge n De ci sio n

The m aj ority al so erre d to co nc lud e tha t thi s ca se is co ntrol le d by Stu eb ge n v.

Sta te , 547 S.W .2d 29 (Tex

. Cri m

. App. 1977 ). Ramsey , 20 14 Tex. App. LEXIS

1351 9, at *4-6. In tha t ca se , the ap pe lla nt wa s co nvi ct ed of forgery f or pa ss ing a

ch ec k be lon gi ng to his em plo y er m ad e pa

y ab le to him wit

h his em plo y er’ s forged
sig na ture

. Stu eb

ge n , 547 S.W .2d at 31. This Co urt not ed tha t t he e m plo y er t es tifi ed

tha t a ppe lla nt ha d be en his em

plo y ee , he norm al ly

pa id e m plo y ee s by

c he ck , he ke pt

the ch ec kboo k in his truc k, an d tha t th r ee to five of his em plo y ee s, inc lud ing the

ap pe lla nt, rode in the truc k at the tim e the ch ec k wa s forged

. Id

. Findi ng the ev ide nc e

ins uffic ie nt t o sh ow t

ha t t he a ppe lla nt k ne w th e ch ec k wa s forge d, t he Co urt s ta te d:

In the ins ta

nt ca se , the rec ord refle ct s tha t ap pell an t made no sta te m en t from whic h it coul d be inferre d that he kne w the ins trum en t was forged

. Appe lla nt wa s li ste d a s the pa

y ee , an d ap pe lla

nt did not fal se ly repre se nt him se lf. No ev ide nc e wa s int roduc ed to show tha

t an y thi ng ap pe ari ng on the ch ec k wa s in ap pe lla

nt’ s ha ndwrit ing

. Alt

houg h ap pe lla

nt ha d ac ce ss to [his em

plo y er’ s] ch ec kboo k, an d [his em ploy er] norm al ly pa id his

7em

pl oyee s pe rsona lly , we do not find tha t thi s ev ide nc e is suffic ie nt to disch arge the Sta te ’s burde n of show ing tha t ap pe lla nt ac te d with in te nt ‘t o de fraud or ha

rm ’ an oth er.

Id . a t 32

.
Stu eb ge n ha s no ap pli ca

tio n he re. First, it is a pre- Ja ck son v. Vir gin ia -era ca se

.
The refore , Ja ck

son ’s ground rule s ab out de ferring to the jury ’s res olu tio n of the fac ts

wa s not y et es ta

bli she d, an d the Co urt did not ap pl y su ch a stand ard on its own. In

fac t, the Stu eb

ge n Co urt ap pe are d to ap ply the no w
- de f un ct , rea sona

ble al te rnat ive
hy pot he sis sta nda rd. Und er Ja ck

son —a s appl ie d toda

y —i t is like ly tha t this Co urt 2

woul d re ac h th e oppo sit e co nc lus ion

.
Ne xt, ev en if Stu eb

ge n is rega

rded as good la

w, the qua

ntu m of ev ide nc e in thi s

ca se diffe rs sig nific an tly from tha t in Stu eb ge n

. He r e, A pp el la nt’ s ac ce ss to the

ch ec kboo k wa s ne arl y ex cl usi ve , as oppo se d to Stueb ge n ’s thre e to five em

plo y ee s.

Thus , the re is no rea sona ble , al te rnat ive cu lprit he re. Addi tio na lly , the ev ide nc e 3

stron gly supp orts Appe lla nt’ s ide nt ity as the forger. He re, the re is a ne xus be twe en Appe lla nt an d the ch ec k be ca

use of the obvi ous at

te m pt to dupl ic at e the un iq ue

m an ne r in wh ic h Ji m

m ie iss ue d App el la

nt’ s pa y ch ec ks.

Se e W ise v. Sta te , 364 S.W .3d 900, 903 (Tex

. Cri m

. App. 2012 ) (rec ogni zi ng tha t 2 the al te rnat ive rea sona

ble hy pot he sis sta nda rd is no lon ge r ap pli ca

ble whe n revi ew ing le ga l su ffici en cy ).
And ag ai n, the rea sona

ble , al te rnat ive cu lprit the ory rel ie d upon in Stu eb ge n 3 woul d be a n im

prope r ap pli ca

tio n of t he suffic ie nc y

sta nda rd tod ay

. 8Conc lusi on

The f act an d ci rcum sta

nc es surroun din g the pa ssi ng of the ch ec k supp ort the

findi ng tha

t Appe lla nt forged it him se lf an d th ere fore int en de d to de fraud or ha rm

Jim m ie Owe ns. The co urt of ap pe als’ de ci sio n repre se nts a m arke d de pa rture from

Ja ck son ’s suffic ie nc y

a na ly tic al c onst

ruct , 443 U.S. at 318-19 , 326, be ca use it fai le d

to ac know le dge the sig nific an ce of al l the fac ts an d log ic al infe renc es tha t supp ort the
jury ’s ve rdic t. This Co urt sh ou ld grant revi ew an d reins ta te Appe lla nt’ s conv ic tio n.

9PRAYE R FO R RE LI EF

W HER EFORE , the Sta te of Te xa s pray s that th e Court of Cri m ina l Appe al s

gran t re vie w a

nd re ve rse the de ci sio n of t he c ourt o f ap pe al s.

R es pe ct fully

sub m itt ed ,
LISA C . Mc MINN Sta te Prose cu tin g At torne y B ar I.D. No.13 8033 00

/s / STAC EY M . GOLDSTE IN Ass ist an t Sta

te Prose cu tin g At torne y B ar I.D. No. 2 4031 632

P.O. B ox 1 3046 Aus tin , Te xa s 78 711 in form at ion @sp a. te xa s.go v 512 -463-16 60 (Te le phon e) 512 -463-57 24 (Fa x)

10CER TI FICAT E O F CO M PL IANCE

The unde rsign ed ce rtifie s tha t ac co rding to the W ordPerfe ct word co unt too l thi s

doc um en t co nta ins 1,59 4 words, ex cl usi ve of the ite m s ex ce pte d by T E X

. R. A P P

. P.
9.4(i)(1).

/s/ STAC EY M . GOLDSTE IN Ass ist an t Sta

te Prose cu

tin g At torne y

11CER TI FICAT E O F SER V ICE

Th e undersi gne d ce rtifie s tha t a co py of the Sta te ’s Pet iti on for Disc ret ion ar y

Re vie w ha s be en se rved on Ja nua ry 29, 2015 , via ce rtifie d el ec troni c se rvic e provi de r

to:

Hon. J. M ic ha el Cri swe ll Swish er C ount

y Att orne y 119 South Ma xwe ll Tuli a, Te xa s 79 088 swis he rca @swi she r-tx.org

Hon. Troy

Bo lli nge r 600 Ash St

ree t Pla inv ie w, Te xa s 79 072 troy @la ne y bol lin ge r.co m

/s/ STAC EY M . GOLDSTE IN Ass ist an t Sta

te Prose cu

tin g At torne y

12

# APPENDIXDONALD LYNN RA M SEY AKA DO NALD LYNN RAM SAY, AP PELLANT v. THE STAT E OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

No. 07 -1 4- 00 24 9- CR

COURT O F AP PEALS OF TEXAS, SEVENTH DISTRI CT, AM ARILL O

20 14 Tex . App . LEXIS 13 51 9

Decem ber 1 7, 20 14 , Dec ided

NOTICE: P LEA SE CONSUL T T HE T EXAS RUL ES OF A P P ELL A T E P ROCEDURE F OR CIT A T ION OF UNP UBLISHED OP INIO NS.

P R IO R H ISTORY: [* 1] On A pp eal from the 24 2nd District Court, Sw ish er Co un ty , T exas. T rial Court N o. B45 02 -13-07, Honor able Edw ard Lee Self, Pr esiding.

JUDGES: Befor e QUINN, C.J. , and CAM P BE LL and P IRT LE, JJ . P atrick A. Pir tle, J ust ice.

OPINION BY: Br ian Quin n

OPINION

M EM ORANDUM OP INION
A pp e llant Donald Ly

nn Ram sey , aka Donald Ly nn Ram say , app eals his conviction of forgery com m itted agains t an elder ly per son by contending t he evidence is ins uf ficien t to sus tain the conviction. We reverse the j udgm ent.
T he standard of review is discussed in B ro o k s v. Sta te, 32 3 S. W. 3d 89 3 (Tex. Crim. App

. 20 10 )

. We refer the parties to that op inion in lieu of reiter ating its content.
N ext, the State alleged, via indictm ent, that app ellant

" w ith the inten t t o defraud or harm another, nam ely JI MMIE E. OWE NS, a n e l d erly individual 65 y ears of age or old er, pass[ed ] to Ja nn a P a r so n, a forged w riting , kn ow ing such w

riting to be forged, and such w rit i ng ha d been so executed so it purp or ted to be the act of JI MMIE E. OWE NS

. . . ." T he statut e upon w hich the allegation

w as fo un ded m ade it an offen se for a per son to forge a
w riting w ith the inten t to defraud or harm ano t he r. See T EX

. P EN AL C ODE A NN

. § 3 2.2 1 (b) (W est 20 11 ). Bec ause 1

an elem ent of the crim e charged req uired pr oo f that the accused acted w ith t he inten t to defraud or harm [* 2]

ano t he r , the " State necessarily had to pr ove that

. . . [the accused] kn ew that the

. . . [ i t e m w as] forged

. . . ." Okon kwo v. Sta te, 3 98 S. W .3d 68 9, 69 5 (Tex. Crim. App

. 20 14 ) ; acco rd Stu ebg en v. Sta te, 54 7 S.W.2d 29
, 32 (Tex. Crim. App

. 19 77 ) (stating that " [w ]hile the req uis ite culpabl e m ental state

. . . [for the offen se of forgery of a w

riting ] is ' inten t t o d e fr a ud or harm ,' w e fail to per ceive how such culpable m ental state can be show n absent pr oo f of kn ow ledge t ha t the ins trum ent is forged." ). A nd, w

hile inten t m ay be inf er r ed from circum stanti al evidence su c h as w or ds, acts, or conduct, P atrick v. Sta te, 90 6 S.W.2d 48 1, 48 7 (Tex. Crim. A p p

. 19 95 ) , inten t to defraud cannot be infe r r e d from m ere evidence of po ssess ion, passage, or p r e sentm ent of a forged ins trum ent. Joh nson v. Sta te, 42 5 S.W.3d 51 6, 52 0 (Tex. A

pp .-- Hou ston [1 st Dist.] 20 12 , p et. ref'd )

.
1 T he definition of " for ge " i ncludes to " alter,

m ake, com

plete, e xecute or auth enticate any
w riting so that it purp or ts

. . . t o b e the act of another w ho did no t a ut horize that a ct

. . . ." T EX

. P EN AL C ODE A NN

. § 32 .21 (a)(

1)(A) (i) ( W e st 20 11 ).
A ccor ding to the evidenc e here, the $6 5 check neg otiated by app ellant w as m ade pay able to him and conta i ne d the sig natu

re " Jim E. Ow ens." Lis ted on the

m em or andum line w as the ph r a se " Contract Labor. " T he

reco rd contains no evidence illus trati ng w ho w ro te that inf or m ation on the item

. N or do es it contain evidence indicating that the han dw riting on the ins trum ent w as sim ilar [* 3] to that of app ellant.
Other e vi d ence illus trated that 1) J. E. Ow ens, eigh ty -f ive y ears old , sig ned his c he cks as Jim m ie E. Ow ens, Jim m ie Ow ens, or J. E. Ow ens; 2) app ellant

w or ked for him a nd his son Je d; 3) app ellant had been pai d i n t he past w ith checks w ritten w ith the w or ds

" Contract Labor" on the m em or andum line; 4) the t w o auth or ized sig natories on the acco un t w ere J. E. Ow ens
w ho is Jim m ie Ow ens and J. J

. O w e ns w ho is Je d Ow ens; 5) J. E. did not sig n or auth or i z e a ny one to sig n the check i n q ue st ion; 6) Je d did not sig n the check or auth or ize another to do so; 7) app ellant lived in theP age 2 20 14 T ex. App. LEXIS 1 35 19 , *

O w ens' shop; 8) the checks w ere kept in an unl o c ke d truck; 9) app ell ant had access to the truck; and 10 ) others

w ho cam e to the sh op had ac cess to the truck as w ell.
T he reco rd further discloses that J ann a P arson ow ned the Bo oger Red Liquor store, w hi ch w as located a blo ck and a half from the Ow ens Moto r Machine shop. She testif ied that app ellant w a s a custom er and passed that check on June 11 , 20 13

. T estimo ny also disclosed that she had received per m ission from t he O w ens to cash pay checks for app ellant. T here is no e vi d ence abo ut
w heth er she reco gn ized the sig natu re on the check as gen uin e. In [* 4] Stu e b g e n v

. Sta te , the defendant cashed a check m ade p a yable to him

. T he nam e of the acco un t
ow ner app eared on the check, but the ow ner testif ied that he did not sig n t he ins trum ent. A dd itionally , the accused

w as an em

pl o yee of the acco un t ow ner w ho also happened to keep his checkboo k i n his truck. A nd, as here, individuals in a d d i t ion to the accused had access to t he veh icle and no evidence app eared of reco rd indicati ng that the w

riting on the ins trum ent w a s sim ilar to that of t he accused. Given these circum stances, our Cour t o f Crim inal A

pp eals w as asked to deter mine w heth er suf ficien t evidence app eared of reco rd from w hic h a ratio nal j ury could inf

er, b e yo nd reaso nable do ubt, that t he a c c used inten ded to defraud or harm

. In respo nse, the court said :

In the ins tant case, the r e c o r d reflects that app e l l ant m ade no statem ent from

w hich i t could be inf

err ed that he kn ew the ins trum ent w as forged. A pp ellant w as liste d as the pay ee, and app ellant did not fals ely rep resent him self

. No evidence w as i n t r o d u c e d t o s h o w t h a t a n y t h i n g app earing on the check w as in ap p ellant' s ha nd w r i t i ng

. Al t ho ug h a p p e l l ant had

access to Ch itw oo d's checkb oo k, and Ch itw oo d norma l ly paid his em plo y ees p e r so nally , [* 5] w e do not fin d that this evidence is suf

ficien t to discharge the Stat e's burd en of show ing that app ellant acted w ith inten t " to defraud o r harm another."

Stu ebg en v. S tate, 54 7 S .W .2d at 32

. We fin d it diff

icult to dis t i ng uis h the m aterial circum stances in Stu ebg en from t ho se befor e us. Consequen tly , w e find the outcom e in Stu ebg en contro lling here. T o the extent that access t o the checks and passing the check w a s not enoug h to establish inten t to defraud there, it w as not enoug h here. Sim ply put, there is no evid ence of reco rd from w hich a ratio nal fact finder could inf

er, bey ond reaso nable do ubt, that app ellant knew the instrum ent w as forged and , therefore, inten ded to defraud or harm either Ow ens. See also Critt end en v. Sta te, 6 7 1 S

. W

.2d 52 7, 52 8 (Tex. Crim. App

. 19 84

) (fi nd i ng no evidence of inten t to defraud from a reco rd in w

hich the defendant m ade no statem ent from w hich it could be i nf

e r r e d that he kn ew the i ns t rum ent w as forged, he w as listed as the pay ee and he did not fals ely rep resent him self , no evidenc e w as introduced to show that a ny thin g o n the check w as in the defendant' s han d w r i ting , there w as no show ing of any
connec t i o n betw een the check stolen from the service station and app ellant pr ior to the tim e he said he received it in the m ail, and he m ade no att e mp t to [* 6] flee after his attem

pt to de po sit the check

w as thw arted ).
We do not have a situ ation like that in Oldh am v. Sta te, 5 S.W.3d 84 0 (Tex. App .-- Hou ston [1 4th Dist.] 19 99
, pet. ref'd)

. T here, the accused rep resented to the p e r so n to w

hom she passed the check that she ob tained the ins t r ument from her em plo y er. Yet, she did not w or k for the per son. Id

. at 84 3- 45

. T he m isrepr esentation allow ed the fact fin der to reaso nably inf er that the

w riting w as forged. So, the State's rel i a nc e on Oldh am is

m isplaced

. 2

2 In W i lliams v. Sta te, 68 8 S.W.2d 48 6 (Tex. Crim. App

. 19 85

) , a no ther case relied on by the State, the defendant w a s asked by the cashier

w here he had ob tained the mo ney or der he sough t to cash, and he rep lied that he had do ne
som e w or k for a lady and sh e p a id him w ith it. Id

. at 48 8

. T he utterance w as fals e, and fr o m that the j ury could ratio nall y i nf er his kn ow ledge of the forgery

. Id . a t 49 0

. Nor do es the evidence that J

. E. Ow ens sig ned the checks as " J. E. Ow ens" constitu te pr oo f that app ellant kn ew the check w as forged. A gain , Ow ens testif ied t ha t he had also si gn e d checks in other w ay s, such as

" Jim m ie Ow ens" or " Jim m ie E. Ow ens." So, it cannot b e ratio nally i nf

e r red that app ellant kn ew of the forgery bec ause the sig natu

re line did not contain " J. E. Ow ens" i n t hi s ins tance. Mor eover, to accep t the State' s argum e nt w ould req uire us to pr esum e that [* 7] app ellant kn ew how Ow ens sig ned his checks , but w e foun d no evidence to suppor t that. Ap p e llant did not testif y ; nor did any one so testif y

. Nor do es the reco rd contain a descr i p t i o n of the num ber of checks pr eviously

w ritten to app ellant a nd the par ticular nam e app earing

on the sig natu

re line. It w ould seem necessary for such to appe ar o f recor d b efore o ne can logically inf er that the pay ee som ehow kn ew w

heth er or not t he sig natu re on a
2P age 3 20 14 T ex. App. LEXIS 1 35 19 , *

later ins trum ent w as gen

uin e or fak e sim

ply by loo kin g at the sig natu

re. Based on t his reco rd , w e fin d the evidence ins uf ficien t to establish that app ellant 1) kn e w the i ns t r um ent w as forged or 2) had the req uis ite inten t to defraud or harm

. Consequen tly , w e r everse the j udgm ent 3 and re nder a j udgm ent of acquittal.

3 P er Bowen v. Sta te, 37 4 S.W.3d 42 7, 43 1- 32 (Tex. Crim. App

. 20 12

) , w e p e rused the reco rd to deter m ine if the crim e for w hich ap p e l l a nt w as tried encom

passed a lesser-in cluded offen se hav ing evidentiary

suppo rt. N one w as foun d.
Br ian Quin

n Ch ief Justice

DISSE NT BY: P atrick A. Pir tle

DISSE NT

DISSE NTING

OP INION
A pp ly ing the pr eced ent of Stu ebg en v. Sta te and 1 Critt end en v. Sta te , the m aj or ity rever se s A pp ellant' s 2 forgery by p assin g conviction by fin ding the evidence ins uf ficien t to establish that A pp e l lant kn ew the ins trum ent w as [* 8] a forgery o r that he had the req uis ite inten t to defraud or harm another. Bec ause I w ould disting uis h the facts of this case from those in Stu ebg en and Critt end en , and beca use I fin d there i s suf ficien t circum stantia l evidence to sus tain A pp ellant' s conviction, I r espectfully

dissent.

1 Stu ebg en v. Sta t e , 5 47 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. Crim. App . 1 97 7)

. 2 Critt e n d e n v

. Sta te, 67 1 S.W.2d 52 7 (Tex. Crim. App . 1 98 4)

. A lthoug h the un der ly ing facts of this case are app ro pr iately set out in the m aj or ity op inion, I w ill br iefly

sum m arize those facts per tinen t to m y analy sis of the

e vi dence. On June 11 , 20 13 , A pp ellant w ent to the Bo oger Re d Li q uo r Store in T ulia, T exas, w here he w as a
r e gu lar custom er, and cashed a check for $6 5. T he c he c k

w as m ade out to A

pp ellant a nd w as dr aw

n on the acco un t of Ow ens M o tor Machine at Centen nial Bank. T he

a c c o unt belo ng ed to J. E. Ow ens and his son, Je d Ow ens. A custom er service rep resentative of the bank testif ied that the acco un t had tw o auth or ized si gn a t or s, " J. E. Ow ens" a nd " J. J. Ow ens."
T he check in question, check nu m ber 1 3 1 3 , w as
m ade out to Donald Ram sey a nd w as sig ned by " Jim E. Ow ens." T he m em o sectio n o f the check reflected that it

w as for " contr act labo r." J. E. Ow ens testif ied that althoug h he has sig ned checks in the past as " Jim m ie E. Ow ens," he did not sign check nu m ber [* 9] 13 13 and he did not auth or ize any one t o sig n it for him

. He fu rther testif ied that he did not auth or ize delivery of the che c k to A pp ellant and he did no t w rite the w or ds " contract labo r" on the ins trum ent. Je d Ow ens a l so testif ied that he did not si gn t he check or auth or ize its issu ance. T he clerk from the liquor store testif ied that she had pr eviously bee n auth or ized by Je d Ow ens to cash A pp ellant' s pay checks

. A dd itional testim ony established t ha t A pp ellant had pr eviously been em plo y ed by the Ow ens and had pr ior access to t he locatio n w here the Ow ens Motor Machine checkboo k w as stored

. Om itting the form al par ts, the i nd ictm ent in the ins tant case charged that Appellant:

" did then and the r e , w ith inten t to d efraud or harm another, nam ely Jim m ie E. Ow ens, an elder ly ind ividual 65 y ears
o f a ge or old er, pass to Ja nn a P arson, a forged w riting , kn ow ing such w

riti ng to be forged, a nd such w

riting had been so executed so it purp or ted to b e t he act of Jimmie E. Ow ens, w

ho did not auth or ize the act . .

. . "

A per son com

m its the offen se of forgery if he fo rges an ins trum ent w ith inten t to defraud or harm another. While it is t rue that the State m ust establish 3
ever y elem ent o f the offen se charged, [* 10 ] the intent to defra ud or harm another m ay be established by circum stanti al as w ell as dir e c t e vidence. W illiams v. Sta te, 68 8 S.W.2d 48 6, 49 0 (Tex

. Crim. App

. 19 85 )

. In W illiams the Cour t of Crim inal A pp eals foun d the evidence w as suf

ficien t to discharge the State' s burd en of show ing that the accused acted w ith inten t to defraud

or harm another w

hen it e stab lish ed he m ade an aff irm ative statem ent that he received the m oney or der he w as attem

pting to pass in exc han ge for w or k per form ed, w

hen other evidence established that the ins trum ent had be en stolen.

3 T he d e fi ni tion of " forge" inclu des to " alter,

m ake, com

plete , execute or auth enticate any
w riting so that it purp or ts

. . . to be the a c t of another w ho did not auth or ize tha t a c t

. . . ." T EX

. P EN AL C O D E A NN

. § 32 .21 (a)(

1)(A) (i) (W est 20 11 ). T he definition also inclu des t o " issu e, transf er, register the transf

er of, pass, publish, or otherwis e utter a w

riting that is forged w ithin the

m e a n i n g o f P a r a g r a p h ( A )

. " I d

. a t § 32 .21 (a)( 1)(B)

. T he Stu ebg en case is disting uis hable. I n that case the Co ur t foun d that the elem ent of " inten t to defraud orP age 4 20 14 T ex. App. LEXIS 1 35 19 , *

harm another," foun d in section 32 .21 (b) , necessarily im p l i c ated a culpable m ental state that included " kn ow ing [the forged ins trum ent] w as for ged at the tim e of the passing ," an elem ent sp ecifically req uired [* 11 ] un der the form er P e nal Code. See A rticles 99 6, 97 9 V ER NON ' S A NN

. P ENA

L C ODE

. Cf

. T EX

. P EN AL C O D E A NN

. § 32 .21 (b) (W est 20 11 ). Sim ilar to the facts of this case, in Stu ebg en t he a ccused passed a check m ade pay able to him self a nd purp or tedly sig ne d by his em plo y er. T he Court of Cr im inal A

pp eals held that sin ce the accused m ade no statem ent fro m w

hich it could be inf

err ed that he kn ew the ins trum ent w as forged, the evidence w as ins uf ficien t to discharge the State' s burd en of show ing he acted w ith the inten t to defraud or harm another. It shoul d be noted, how ever, that un li ke t he r ecor d in this case, the reco rd in Stu ebg en do es not reflect the fo rged ins trum ent contained

a m em o concerning the purp ose for w hich the ins trum ent
w as giv en. In Critt end en the Co urt of Crim inal Appe als reversed

a for ge r y conviction beca use the State failed to show the accused had kn ow ledge that the ins trum ent w a s forged. In that case, the accused attem p t e d to op en a checkin g and savin gs acco un t by de p o sitin g a forged check. When the bank teller questioned the ins trume nt and called the

ow ner of t he acco un t, she w as told the check had been stolen. T he p olice w ere sum m oned and the accused explained he thoug ht the check w as from his attor ney , [* 12 ] rep resenting pr ocee ds fr o m a per sonal injury case. Bec ause there w as no show ing of a ny connection betw een the accused and the stolen c he c k, he m ade no statem ent s fro m w

hich it could be inf

err ed that he kn ew the c heck w as stolen, and he m ade no attem pt to flee a ft er his attem pt t o dep osit the check w as thw arted , the Court foun d the evidence w a s i nsu ff icient to show that he had the inten t to defraud o r harm

another. I fin d that the ins tant case to b e mo r e app ro pr iately governed by the holding in W illiams

. Here , sim ilar to W illiams and un li ke Stu ebg en and Critt end en , A pp ellant attem pted to pass a n i nst

rum ent that clearly stated that it

w a s giv en for a specific purp ose, to-w it: " contra c t l a b o r

. " Furth erm or e, the evidence established that he w as a for mer em

plo y ee of the purp or ted m aker of the check, had acc ess to a checkboo k fro m their acco un t and p assed the ins trum ent at a locatio n w here he kn ew his

" pay checks " w ould be honored

. Review ing the evidence in the ligh

t mo st fav or able to the j ury ' s verdict, the evidence in this case circ umst antially establishes that A pp ellant passed the check un der c ircum stances inf erentially rep resenting the check w as giv en for service s render ed. A s such , beca use [* 13 ] the testim ony of J. J. Ow ens and Je d Ow ens circumst a ntially

e s t a b l i s h e d that the check w as not issu ed to A pp ellant for se r vi c es render ed, I believe a ratio nal and fair-m inded j uror could conclude bey ond a reaso nable do ubt that A pp ellant k n e w the ins trum ent w as forged w hen he p a ss ed it. A ccor dingly , I w ould overr ule A pp ellant' s suf

ficien cy issu e and aff

irm t he j udgm ent of conviction. See Jack so n v. Virgin ia, 44 3 U.S. 30 7, 99 S.Ct. 27 81
, 61 L

. E d .2d 56 0 (197 9) ; Broo ks v. Sta te, 32 3 S.W.3d 8 9 3
, 89 5 (Tex. Crim. A

pp . 2 01 0)

. P atrick A. Pir tle
Justice
Do not publish.