Court Opinion

ID: 9778386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:02:47.781215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:08.290054
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority holds that the allegations in this credit card abuse case did not charge an offense because it did not allege that the petitioner presented the card knowing that she did not have the effective consent of the complainant. The indictment alleged that petitioner did
. . unlawfully with intent to fraudulently obtain property and services present to Pam Rutledge a BankAmeri-eard credit card owned by Hiram C. Limerick, hereafter styled the Complainant, without the effective consent of the Complainant, knowing that the credit card had not been issued to the Defendant.
This Court held in Johnson v. State, 541 S.W.2d 619 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), that such allegations were good and alleged an offense. After the courts have followed the Johnson case for three years, the majority now holds fundamental error on the same allegations. The Johnson case was on appeal. The present case concerns a collateral habeas corpus attack after Sharpe did not contest the indictment. She entered a plea of nolo contendere which is tantamount to a plea of guilty.
The indictment is sufficient to give notice to an accused that the charge is credit card abuse. It alleges that the defendant with intent to fraudulently obtain property and services presented a credit card belonging to the complainant without the effective consent of the complainant knowing that the credit card had not been issued to the defendant.
Reading the allegations as a whole, it shows that Sharpe knew that she did not have consent to present the credit card. It alleges that she fraudulently used it without the effective consent of the complainant to obtain property.
Article 21.17, V.A.C.C.P., provides:
“Words used in a statute to define an offense need not be strictly pursued in the indictment; it is sufficient to use other words conveying the same meaning, or which include the sense of the statutory words.”
This statute and the Johnson case, supra, should be followed.
In Teniente v. State, 533 S.W.2d 805 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), the conviction was for burglary. The indictment alleged:
“ ‘On or about the 3rd day of July, A.D., 1974, Tony P. Teniente did then and there, with intent to commit theft, enter a habitation without the effective consent of Carlos Reyna, the owner.’ ”
There was no allegation of a culpable mental state that Teniente intentionally or knowingly entered the building. The allegation of entering the building “with intent to commit theft” was held sufficient. The same reasoning should apply in this case. The relief sought should be denied.
W. C. DAVIS, J., joins in this dissent.