Opinion ID: 1987249
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Theft Conviction Based on Business Transactions.

Text: Rivers' second theft conviction stems from six remodeling contracts he undertook in the Oskaloosa area between September 1995 and January 1996. The evidence established that in each instance Rivers received either substantial partial payment or complete payment for the job, that he completed a portion of the work, or in one case, none at all, and that he then failed to finish the job. No refunds were made to any of his customers. There was additional evidence that Rivers had engaged in a similar pattern of conduct the previous year in Indianola. Rivers argues that the State failed to prove that at the time of the down payments on the remodeling contracts he had no intention of completing the contracts or knew that he was unable to complete them, as required for proof of deception under section 702.9(5). We recently considered the applicability of section 702.9(5) in similar circumstances in the Tovar case. 580 N.W.2d at 772. A brief discussion of that case is helpful in analyzing the evidence in the case before us. In Tovar, the defendant failed to perform two contracts for the installation of carpeting, after having received partial payments from his customers. Id. at 769. We noted that the only factual finding made by the trial court to support its finding of intent was that Tovar had lied to his customers as to why he wanted the down payment checks made out to him individually rather than being payable to his business. Id. at 772. We concluded the State had proved nothing more than that Tovar had failed to perform, a fact insufficient by itself to prove intent. Id. The evidence of intent in the present case is far more substantial; the jury could have found from this evidence a common scheme or plan by Rivers to defraud his customers. Once Rivers established the initial contact with a customer, he used various ploys and reasons to persuade the customer to make additional and premature payments: Rivers would offer to throw in additional work for free; he said he had to have the money for payroll or his crew would not return; or he claimed he needed the money to move his shop or to buys tools or materials. Typically, the customer would pay the balance and Rivers and his crew would never return. Even when they did show up again, the work progressed slowly and eventually, before anything was completed, stopped entirely. Another ploy used by Rivers was to find other projects on the premises that needed to be done. He would convince the customer that he could do the additional work; the original contract would be amended; and he would be paid additional moneys. The evidence suggests that when Rivers had milked the customer for as much as appeared possible, he never showed up again. In addition, customers were often unable to contact Rivers. When they would reach him, he always had a reason why he had not performed. On several occasions when he suspected that his customers were unhappy with his progress and had complained to others about him, he threatened them with lawsuits. Perhaps the most convincing evidence of Rivers' intent was the evidence that he had followed a similar pattern of conduct a year earlier in the Indianola area. See Baker v. State, 588 So.2d 945, 947 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (holding evidence of other similar failures to perform support a finding that the defendant never intended to perform in the case before the court). Rivers' various bankruptcies also support the inference of an intent to deceive, rather than evidencing poor business management. As previously noted, Rivers had filed four petitions for bankruptcy within thirteen months. Although only one petition was fully processed, creditors, including the victims in the Oskaloosa area, received notices of the bankruptcy petitions and thus, as the trial court noted, would be disinclined to pursue Rivers for restitution. The trial judge made the following apt observation at sentencing: You are as surely a predator as a fox is when it comes to being able to talk people into down payments and then being able to walk away from performing the work that you had agreed to do. The scheme is obvious to me in the various bankruptcies and the notices that were sent knowing that you couldn't complete those bankruptcies but knowing that that would get people off your back for work that you had promised and didn't intend to complete. As the trial court recognized, the jury could have found that the facts and circumstances surrounding these business transactions revealed a scheme to obtain money from unsuspecting individuals without any intent to perform the promised work. It is this evidence of intent that distinguishes the case before us from Tovar. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court correctly denied Rivers' motion for judgment of acquittal on this charge. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.