### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

44444444444

4444 NO. 03-01-00273-CR

44444444444

4444 Pamela T. Ha

yes, Appel

lant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NO. A-99-0601-S, H ONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING
A ppe l l an t Pam el a T. Ha yesappe als h

er c onv i cti on f orf orgery . See Te x. P en. Code Ann. § 32.21 (b) (W

est 199 4). A

ppel l an t asks thi s Court to reverse

her conv i cti on an d ren der a judg ment of acqui

tt al on the grounds that (1) a fatal var iance e xists beca use , a ltho ugh t he indict ment al le ges that appell

ant forged a che ck, the evi

dence at trial in dic ated that t he i

nstrume nt techni cally was not a che ck; a nd t her efo re (2 ) t he evide nce w as leg ally i nsufficient to supportt he jur y’s verd ict. We wil l af f i rm the tri al court’s j udgm en t. BACKGROUND On ap pe al, ap pe llant emp ha siz es t ha t t he ind ict me nt sp ec i f i ca l l y ch arge s h er wi th forgi ng a check . The pert in

ent po rtion of the indictment reads as follows: PAMELA T. HA

YES , De f en da nt, on or abo ut t he 3r d da y of June , A. D. 199 9, and be f ore th e p re se

n tmen t of th i s i n di ctm en t, i n sa i d C oun ty an d S tate , di d t hen and there, wi th in tent t o defraud and harm another, intentionall y an d knowingl

y possess wi th in tent t o pass a f

o rged writi

ng, knowi

ng such writi ng to be forged, and such2

wr iting had b een m

ade so that it purported to be the ac t of Rob ert S m

i th, wh o di d n ot authorize the

act, an d sa i d wri tin g was a ch eck . . . . The in dictment i ncl udes a p ho t o co py o f t he fo r ge d in st rume nt , wh ich r ec it es t ha t t he mak er is Robe rt Sm i th and “P ay the amou nt o f $3 22
. 55 , pa yable to Pame la T. Hayes;June 3rd, 1999; ac count numb er 41217 41554 91764 6.”

At t r ial, the Stat e presented ev i den ce con cern i n g th e n atu reof th e f org ed i n str um en t. In op ening ar gument , t he St at e ac kno wledg ed t hat t he inst ru ment app ellant w as c har ged wit h pas sing
was not “a normal

check . . . it wasn ’t a check; but it was pas sed as a ch eck . . . .” The alle ged
maker, Robe

rt M. Smi th, test if ie d that t he i nstrume nt passed b

y a ppel la nt was not an ordin

ary ch eck. Based o n his expe rience fro m pre viou s co nsult ingwork, Sm i th te sti f i ed tha t the doc um en t i n q ue sti on was of t he typ e se

nt out by credi t card co mpa nie s t o allo w o ne t o t r an sfe ra b ala nc e fr o m o ne cr ed it card to an othe r. Sm i th a l so p oi nte d out s evera

l com mon f ea ture s of ch ec kstha t we re m i ss i ng f rom t he in strumen t presentedby

appella nt. Ann Hoelsch er, anotherwitne ss f

or t he State and a cash

ie r wi th Te xas Ba nk, t est ifi

ed t hat t he nu mbe r ing o n t he bo t t o m o f t he inst rume nt wa s inv alid an d w o uld
no t ha ve go ne t hr o ug h t he ba nk ing sys t em. Hoelscher als o testifi ed that the wording of the f orged in strumen t was not t hat of a norm

al and l egi tim ate check.
DISCUSSI ON Fatal Variance

A pe r so n w ho fo r ge s a wr it ing wit h int en t t o de fr au d o rha r m a nother comm its an off en se of f orgery . See Te x. P en. Co de Ann. §32.21 (b) (W est 199 4). Section 32.21(a)(1) defi nes “f org e” as foll

ows:1 The pe rti ne nt p orti on of the i ndictmen t reads t hat app ellant d id “with int ent t o d efra ud a nd ha rm another, i

nten tion al l y and kn owi ngl y posse ss w

i th i nten t to pass a

f orged wr i tin g . . . .” 3 (A) to al ter, make, co mplet e, exec ut e, or aut hent icat e any wr iting so t h at i t pu rp orts ( i) to b e th

e act of an oth er wh o di d n ot au th ori ze th at act; ( ii) to have been

executed at a tim

e or place or in

a num bered sequen

ce other tha n wasi n f ac t the ca se ; or ( iii) to be a copy

of an origin

al when no such ori gin

al exi sted; (B) to issue, transfer, regist er the trans f er of , pas s, publ i sh , or otherwise u tter a wri ti ng tha t i s f orge d w i thi n th e m ea ni ng of Par agraph ( A ); or (C) to possess

a wri tin g that i s f orged wi thi n the mean i ng of Paragra ph ( A ) w i

th i nten t to utt er i

t in a m an ner spe ci f i ed i n Pa ragra ph (B).
Te x. Pen. Co de Ann. §32 .2 1( a) (1 ) ( West 199 4) . T he indict ment c har ged app ellant w ith fo rg inga wr iting wi th th e i n ten t to def raud or h arm another. 1 A

pp el l an t doe s n ot co n ten d th at th e S tate fai le d to prove the required

el em ents of the off

ense. The evi dence at trial

cl early showed thatappella

nt had possessed wit h t he in

tent t o pass a for ged “writ ing” t hat had be en made so t hat it p ur po rt ed t o be t he act of R obert Sm i th, wh o di d not au

thori ze the ac t. Appe l l an

t conten ds, h owev er, that the St ate also had to prove that t he writi

ng was a c h eck. The i ssue of wh ether the forged i

nstrume nt was an
au t he nt ic check is i

mportant, appell

ant urges, because

the in dictment speci

fi cally refers to the forged
wr iting as a

“che ck.” Appel la nt contends that by

specifi cally descri bi ng the f orged writi

ng as a ch eck in t he i ndictm ent, t h e S tate as su med th e b ur den of pr ov i n g i ts c as e a s a

l l eg ed . Acc ordi

n g to appe l l an t, the Stat e’s f

ai lure to do so r esul

ted in a v ari an cebe twe en the i nd i ctm en t an d the p roof pres en ted at tri al
.2 A de term i na ti on of materi al i ty i s r eq ui red i n th e c onte xt of a va r ian ce - insu fficie nc y cla im pr imar ily be ca us e “ in

a v ari an ce sit ua t io n, un like a s t an da r d in su fficie nc y cla im, t he St at e, by all account s, has proven that the defen dant comm

itted a crim

e. The onl

y que stion i s whether i

t has pr ove n t he details as i

t alleged i n the i ndictmen t.” Gollihar v. State , 4 6 S .W. 3d 2 43, 248 n.7 (T ex. Cri m . App. 2001 ).
3 Past deci si ons by

the Texas Court of Crim in al Appeals hav

e off ered sligh tly different for mulat ions o f t he mater i al i ty re qui rem en t. See, e.g. , Rojas v. Stat e , 9 86 S .W. 2d 2 41, 246 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 199 8) (no t ing t hat a “var iance be t wee n t he cha rg ingin strumen t and the proo f at trial

is ma terial only if it operated t o t he defendant 's sur prise o r pr ejudiced his right s”); Stevens v. State , 891 S.W.2d 649 , 6 50 ( Te x. C rim. App . 1 995 ) ( “The o bject of t he do ct rine o f varianc e bet wee n allegat ions of an indict ment is

to avoi d surpris e, and f

or such vari

ance to be m

aterial it m ust be such

as to mi sl ead th e p ar ty to his prejudice. ”); Ples

singer v. State , 536 S. W.2 d 38 0 ( Te x. C rim. App . 1 976 ) ( hold ing variance i n sty l e of ca se pl eade d f or en h an cemen t n ot m ate rial wh er e def en da n t n ot surprise d or m i sled to his pre

j udice). 4 A va ri ance occ urs when there is a di screpancy

bet wee n t he allega t ions in t he cha rg ing instr ument an d t he pr o o f at t r ial. “In a v ari an ce si tua ti on , the S tate

h as pr ov en th e def en da n t gui l ty of a crim e, but has pr o ve n it s c o mmiss io n in a man ne rt ha t va r ies fr o m t he alle ga t io ns in t he cha rg ing i nstrumen t.” Gollihar

v. State , 46 S.W.3d 243, 246 ( T ex. Cri m. A pp. 2001). Assum

in g without deci din g that appell

ant is correct in

assertin g that (1) t he proof presented at trial dem onstrates t hat the instrumen

t signed and passed by

her technical

ly was not a check, and (2) t hat fact const itutes a variance, we m

ust determi

ne wh ethe r thi s v ari an ce is ma t er ial. 2 A va r ian ce is ma t er ial w he n it is prejudicial

to a defendant’s sub stan

tia l ri ghts
. See i

d. at 248. In determin

in g whether a defendant’s substantial

rights have b een prejudiced, co urt s generall y m ake two in

quiri es: [W]hether th e i n di ctm en t, as wr i tt en, in

formed the defendan

t o f the charge again

st hi m su ffic ie ntly to al low hi

m to prepare an adequate def ense at trial, and whethe

r prosecution under

t he de f i ci en tl y dr af ted i n di ctm en t wou l d sub j ec t th e def

en da n t to the risk of bei

ng prosecuted later f

or t he sam

e crim e. Id. (citi ng United States v. Sprick , 233 F .3d 845 , 853 (5 th Ci r. 2000 )). 34 The type of wri ting b ei ng f orged is releva nt only t o t he de gr ee o f punishment impose d. The f orgery stat uteprov

i de s th at a n “ of f en se un de r thi s s ec ti on i

s a sta te j ai l f el ony i f the wri ti ng i s or pu rp orts to b e a wi l l , c odi ci l , de ed , de ed

of tru st, mortg ag e, se cu

ri ty i n str um en t, se cu ri ty ag re em en t, 5 In Diet z v. S tate , 62 S.W .3d 335 (Tex . App.—A usti n 20 01, pet. fi

l ed), thi s Court anal yz ed the ma terial ity requirem ent of vari ance pursuan

t t o t he test set out in Gollihar : whe t her t he i n di ctm en t, as w rit t en, i

nf orm ed the de f en da nt of the ch arg e agai ns t hi m su f f i ci en tl y to al l owh i m to prepa re an adequate def

ense at trial, and whethe

r prosecution under

t he ind ict men t wo uld subjec t t he defend ant t o t he r isk o f beingprosecuted late r fo r t he sa me crime. In Diet z, the in dictment stated that t he defend ant , a bail enfor cement age nt at t empt ing t o a ppr ehend a fug itive at an ap ar t ment c omp lex, in tended to in duce a po lice officer and th re e oc cu pa n ts o f th e a pa rtm en t to s ub m i t to hi s a uth ori ty by preten di ng to b e a pol

i ce of f i cer. Id. at 3 40 . H owev er , the ev i den ce at t rial sho wed t hat t he defend ant represented hi

ms el f as a poli ce off ic er to only

the poli ce off ic er and one occupa nt. Id. T his Courthel d that t here was

no va riance bet wee n t he in dictment an

d the evi dence b ecause the State was not re quir ed t o p ro ve t hat t he de fendant mi srepresented hi

ms el f to any

one he i ntended to i n du ce to sub m i t to hi s cl ai med au thori ty. Id. at 340. We f

urther concluded that if a v arian ce existed, it was immat er ial, re aso ning t hat t her e wa s “no t hing in the re co rd t o ind icat e t hat t he p rec i se nu m be r of pe o ple to wh

om Di etz im personated hi

ms el f as a publ ic servan t was crucial

to hi s abi li ty to conduct his defens e t o t he charged off ense.” Id. at 341. Also, we f ound that t he def

endan t faced no further pros ecution

“b ec au se th e i n di ctm en t on i ts f ac e c on sti

tute s e v i den ce th at he w as

ch arge d w i th im personatin

g a publ ic servan t with respect to all

four i ndi vi dual s.” Id. I n lig ht o f t he mat er ialit y t es t se t o ut in Gollihar and it s a pp lica t io n by t his C o ur t in Dietz , we concl

ude t hat eve n if a

va r ian ce ex ist s in t his c as e, it is no t mat er ial. 4 Tha t is, t he indict mentcr ed it card, check or si mi la r sigh t o rder for paym

ent of m oney , contract , releas e, or o ther comm ercia l i nstrumen t.” Te x. P en. Co de Ann. § 32 .2 1( d) (Wes t 199 4) . Fo llowing trial , appell ant was sentence d to co nfinement in st at e jail for a per iod of t wo years , w ith t his co nfinement be in g suspen ded and appell ant placed on pro bation for fi ve y ears. 5 “[W]ri ting” i nc l ude s: pri nti ng oran y othe r m eth od of recor din g in formation; m

oney, coins, to kens, sta

m ps , se als, c

red i t ca rds , b adge s, a

nd trad em arks; an d s y m bol s of va l ue , ri gh t, pri vi l eg e, or i den tif i cation. Tex . Pen . Code A nn . §32.21 (a)(2) (W

est 199 4). 6 in form ed appell ant of the charge against her suff ici ently to all ow her t o pr epare an adequat e defense at trial , and the i

ndictmen t would not subj ect her to t he ri sk of a l ater pro secution f

or t he sam

e crim e. Se e Gollihar , 46 S. W. 3d at 25 8. I n d et er mining wh et he rt he ind ict men t ga ve ap pe llant su fficie n t noticeto prepare a defe

nse, we rei

terat e that the Stat e was not required to plead in the in dictment that t he forged wri

ting wa s a chec

k or any other

sp ec i f i c i n str um en t; an indict ment mu st include o nly the
essen tial element s o f the off

en se a s pre sen

ted i n the statute. Thomas v. State , 621 S.W.2d 158, 161 (T ex. Cr i m . A pp . 19 81 ). Th e i

n di ctm en t track s th

e l an gu ag e of th e f org er y sta tute, a nd an “indictment o rinfo r mat io n no r mally p r o vid es su fficie nt no t ice if it t ra cks t he langu age of t he statute.” Olureb i v. State , 870 S. W.2 d 58 , 6 2 ( Te x. C rim. App . 1 994 ). The indict ment in q ue st io n c o rr ec t ly charged appe l l an t f or p oss es si

on wi th th e i n ten t to pass a f

orged “writi

ng,” a word that is def

in ed in t he f orgery statut e. 5 If a w or d is de fined in the st at ut e and t he wo rd use d in an indict ment t ra cks t he statutory la nguage, the word need

not b e f urth er a l l eg ed ordef i ne d i n the i ndi ctmen t. Thomas , 621 S. W.2d at 161 ; State v. Mays , 967 S.W .2d 404 , 409 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1998 ).7 Furtherm ore, ap pe lla

nt do es no t at t empt t o p ro vide any ra t ionale a s t o w hy the de scri ption of the forged wr itin

g as a“ ch eck” ad v er se l y af f ec ted h er ab i l i ty to pres en t an adeq ua te defen se. Rat her , a ppe llant r elies o n Taylor v. State , 626 S.W.2d 543 (Tex. App.—Texarkan a 1981, pe t. ref’ d), to il

lus trat e the applic ation of the f atal variance doctrin

e i n a f orgery case. At t he t ime of th at dec i si

on , f org er y cou l d b e c om m i tt ed in an y oneo f thr ee w ays: by alt er ing o r mak ing, by passi ng, and by pos sess ingwi

th i nten t to pass. Id. at 545. There, t he i ndictmen t specif ic al ly charged t he defen dant wi th alteri ng an in strumen t, but the evi

dence at trial

only establ is hed that he h

ad passed t he i nstrumen t. Id. T he Six t h C o ur t o f Ap pe als st at ed t ha t t he “S t at e c o uld ha ve ch ar ge d h im wi th f orgery by any or all of t he t hre e met hod s. I t cho se t o s elect , indict , a nd t ry Ta ylor fo r fo rg er y by alte ring a writi

ng. Whe n t he pr o se cu t io n se lec t s t he mo de o f ch ar gin g a cr ime it must prove t he case as al le ged.” Id.

We do not fi

nd Taylor to be con troll i ng. I n Taylor , the defe

ndan t clearl y was m is le d by t he indict ment s o t hat his defens e wa s pr epa re d so lely against t he allega t ion o f alte ring t he in st ru ment in qu es t io n. He r e, t he ne ed les s d es cr ipt io n o f t he wr it ing as a “ ch ec k” did no t impa ir appellant’s ab i l i

ty to pre pare h er def en se. A ppel l an t adm i tted to the f

orgery of a writing that at least purported

to be a check. A

ppel la nt does not co ntend that she woul d have p repared her defens e diffe r en t ly

if she h ad been charged wi

th forgery of

“a ch eck o r simil

ar sight order for payment of money. ” SeeTe x. P en. Co de Ann . § 32.21 (d) ( West 199 4) . N eithe r d oe s t he de scr ipt ion o f the f org ed wri ti n g a s a ch eck sub j ec t appe l l an

t to t he r isk o f be ing pr o se cu t ed lat er fo rt he sa me crim e. Appe llantwa s c ha r ge d w it h fo r gin g o nly t he inst rume nt t ha t is ph o t o co pie d in t he ind ict men t ; it is8

t he sa me fo r ge d in st rume nt ex hibit ed an d p r o ve d a t t r ial. We h old the va rian ce was not mate rial, a nd
o ve rrul e a pp ella nt ’s iss ue ac co r di ng ly. Insufficiency of the Evidence

The Co ur t o f Cr iminal A pp ea ls has prev iousl y c onsi dered

and rej ected the notion that
va r ia nceclai

m s are som ehow di sti

nc t from i ns uf f i ci ency of the ev i den ce c l ai m s. See Goll

ihar , 4 6 S.W.3d a t 24 7. A

pp el l an t’s ch al l en ge to th e l eg al suf f i ci en cy of th e ev i den ce

re sts sol el y on th e variance, an

d because appella nt’s pleaded vari

ance is i mm aterial , our inqui

ry is ended.
CONCLU SION We overrule appel

la nt’s i ssue. Accordin

gly , the judgm

ent of the trial

court is aff irm ed.

Mari ly n A boussie, Chief J

ustice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussie, Justices

B. A. Sm ith an d Puryear Af fi rmed File d: February

28, 2002 Do No t Publis

h