Holcomb, Donna Gayle ( 2015 )

A?33-/Y
No. PD-1233-14
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
DONNA GAYLE HOLCOMB
Petitioner,
V.
MAR 3 0 2015
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Respondent.
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
On Petition for Discretionary Review from the Court of Appeals for the
First District, Houston, Texas in Cause No. 01-08-00337-CR,
Affirming the Conviction from the 230th District Court of
Harris County, Texas in Cause No. 1141352
Donna Gayle Holcomb
4906 Scott Reef Dr.
Bacliff, Texas 77518
Petitioner, Pro Se ._.. __. ...
FILED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
apr cn::]
Abel Acosta, Clerk
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
IDENTITY OF JUDGE, PARTIES, and COUNSEL
In accordance with Tex. R. App. Proc. 68.4(a), Petitioner submits that the
following are parties to the judgment or order appealed:
Donna Gayle Holcomb Petitioner
4906 Scott Reef
Bacliff, Texas 77518
Mark Aronowitz - Trial counsel for Appellant.
P.O. Box 1201
Texas City, TX 77592
Markay Stroud - Trial counsel for the State of Texas.
Harry Lawrence
1201 Franklin
Houston, TX 77002
Dan McRory - Appellate counsel for the State of
Texas. 1201 Franklin
Houston, TX 77002
Hon. Belinda Hill - Presiding judge of the Trial
Court. 230th District Court
1201 Franklin
Jerome Godinich, Jr. Attorney for Appellant in Court of Appeals.
929 Preston, Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF JUDGE, PARTIES, and COUNSEL ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS hi
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES iv
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY 3
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW 4
A. GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER ONE: The court of appeals
erred by applying an incorrect standard of review. The panel erred by
failing to apply a heightened standard of sufficiency where a
commercial transaction is involved. (Op. at 25-30)
B. GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER TWO: The court of appeals
erred by applying an incorrect standard of review. The failure to
return payments made under a contract does not constitute theft. (Op. at
27)
C. GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER THREE: The court ofappeals
erred in its application of the "doctrine of chances." (Op. at 25-29)
D. GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER FOUR: The court of appeals
erred in finding that Petitioner was not harmed by the violation of the
double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution and reforming the
judgment to allow for the lesser included offense. (Op. at 31-32)
ARGUMENT 5
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 18
APPENDIX 20
in
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page
Bakerv. State, 986 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 1998, pet. refd) 8,9
Bokor v. State, 114 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 2002, no pet.) 4,6
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 168, 97 S. Ct. 2221, 53 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1977) 16
Cox v. State, 658 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1983, pet. ref d) 8,9
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Cr. App. 2009) 10,11
Fox v. State, 115 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist]
2002, pet. refd) 10
Hesbrookv. State, 149 Tex. Crim. 310, 194 S.W.2d260 (1946) 8,9
Jacobs v. State, 230 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.]
2006, no pet.) 4,6
Morgan v. State, 692 S.W.2d 877 (Tex. Cr. App. 1985) 11
Phillips v. State, 640 S.W.2d 293 (Tex. Cr. App. 1982) 7
Plantev. State, 692 S.W.2d487 (Tex. Cr. App. 1985) 10,11
Smalis V.Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140,145-145(1986) 16
Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462, 468, 125 S. Ct. 1129, 160 L. Ed. 2d 914
(2005).... 15
Stockman v. State, 826 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1992, pet. ref d) 4,6
UnitedStates v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 571, 97 S. Ct. 1349, 51
L. Ed. 2d 642 (1977) 15
IV
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Petitioner believes that oral argument will be helpful. Petitioner requests oral
argument. Petitioner will attempt to find an attorney to argue it for her if the Court
grants Oral Argument in this case.
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
PD-1233-14
DONNA GAYLE HOLCOMB,
Petitioner,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
On Petition for Discretionary Review from the Court of Appeals
for the First District, Houston, Texas in Cause No. 01-08-00337-
CR, Affirming the Conviction in Cause No. 1141352 from the
230th District Court of Harris County, Texas.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Petitioner, Donna Gayle Holcomb, pro se, files this Petition for Discretionary
Review. In support of her request for review, Petitioner would respectfully show
the Court the following:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner was charged by indictment in cause number 1141352 with
aggregate theft. (Op. at 2). Petitioner pleaded not guilty and a jury trial ensued.
(Op. at 2). Petitioner was found guilty and the jury assessed punishment at eleven
(11) years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice- Institutional
Division and a $10,000.00 fine. (Op. at 2). Petitioner filed a motion for new trial,
which was overruled. Petitioner gave timely notice of appeal.
* The record onpetition for discretionary
review is cited as follows:
CRat/? Clerk's record at page p.
RR Vat p Reporter's record volume Vat page
p. Op. atp Opinion at page p.
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE
In a PUBLISHED opinion delivered August 28, 2014, a panel of the First
Court of Appeals REVERSED Petitioner's conviction for aggravated theft and
REMANDED the case for the trial court to REFORM the judgment and conduct a
new punishment hearing. On September 12, 2014, The Petitioner filed a pro se1
motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. Petitioner intended to
file a motion for rehearing. The Petitioner's Petition for Discretionary Review
("PDR") was due on September 27, 2014. Petitioner filed a motion to proceed pro
se in this Court which was granted. Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time2
to file her PDR which was granted and made Petitioner's PDR due on March 9,
2015.
1In May of 2014, Petitioner wroteto her court appointed attorney, Jerome Godinich, and the court
of appeals that Godinich would not contact her despite repeated requests. She was forced to file
motions pro se as Godinich missed at leastone deadline. Godinich filed a motion for extension of
time to file a petition for discretionary review in this Court on September 12, 2014 without
authority from Petitioner and without responding to Petitioner's repeated requests for him to
contact her or move to withdraw, which caused the court of appeals to refuse to rule on her motion
for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing because Godinich's motion was electronically
filed with this Court and Petitioner's motion was filed with the court of appeals under the mailbox
rule.
2This was Petitioner's second extension request granted by this Court.
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
A. GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER ONE: The court of appeals
erred by applying an incorrect standard of review. The panel erred by
failing to apply a heightened standard of sufficiency where a
commercial transaction is involved. (Op. at 25-30)
B. GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER TWO: The court of appeals
erred by applying an incorrect standard of review. The failure to
return payments made under a contract does not constitute theft. (Op. at
27)
C. GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER THREE: The court ofappeals
erred in its application of the "doctrine of chances." (Op. at 25-29)
A. GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER FOUR: The court of appeals
erred in finding that Petitioner was not harmed by the violation of the
double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution and reforming the
judgment to allow for the lesser included offense. (Op. at 31-32)
ARGUMENT
Groundfor Review Number One:
The court of appeals erred by applying an incorrect standard of review. The
panel erred by failing to apply a heightened standard of sufficiency where a
commercial transaction is involved. (Op. at 25-30).
Reasons for Review:
1. The panel decision of the First Court of Appeals requires review
because the court decided an important question of state law that that is in
conflict with the applicable decisions of this Court on the same matter. The
decision of the First Court of Appeals is in conflict with this Court's holding in
Phillips v. State, 640 S.W.2d293,294 (Tex. Cr. App. 1982).
2. The panel decision of the First Court of Appeals requires review
because the court decided an important question of state law that that is in conflict
with another decision of a Court of Appeals on the same matter. The panel decision
of the First Court of Appeals is in conflict with its sister court of appeals decision
in Jacobs v. State, 230 S.W.3d 225, 231-32 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist]
2006, no pet.); the Fort Worth Court of Appeals decision in Bokor v. State, 114
S.W.3d 558, 560- 61 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 2002, no pet.); the Dallas court of
appeals decision in Stockman v. State, 826 S.W.2d 627, 636 (Tex. App. - Dallas
1992, pet. refd) and the Texarkana Court of Appeals decision in Baker v. State,
986 S.W.2d 271, 274 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 1998, pet. refd).
3. The panel decision ofthe Court ofAppeals requires review because the
court of appeals has decided an important question of state law, which has not
been, but should be settled by this Court.
Statement offacts:
4. Petitioner and her husband (the "Holcombs") were in the business of
house moving. (Op. at 3). At trial, the complaining witnesses listed in the
indictment testified that they each signed a contract with the Petitioner to purchase
a house from Petitioner for Petitioner and her husband to move to a lot owned by
the complaining witness. The Holcombs performed on the contracts but, for
various reasons, where unable to complete the move. (Op at 3.). Instead of filing
civil suits, the complainants reported the Holcombs to the police. (Op. at 3).
Argument and Authorities:
5. In its opinion of August 28,2014, Petitioner submits the panel fell into
error because it did not review the sufficiency of the evidence under the
appropriate standard of review. When a dispute involves a commercial
transaction, a heightened standard of review is necessary so that routine civil
disputes do not become the subject of criminal law.
6. When the charged conduct concerns a matter for which the alleged
victim and the accused had a contractual relationship, certain concerns arise. "[A]
claim of theft made in connection with a contract requires proof of more than an
intent to deprive the owner of property and subsequent appropriation of the
property." Baker v. State, 986 S.W.2d 271, 274 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 1998,
pet. refd). Neither the mere failure to perform a contract, nor the mere failure
"to return or pay back money after failing to perform a contract, for the
performance of which the money was paid in advance," are sufficient to
establish guilt of theft. Id. When alleging theft in connection with a contract,
the State "must prove the defendant did not perform the contract and knew he
was not entitled to the money, not merely that there is a dispute about the amount
rightfully owed." Jacobs v. State, 230 S.W.3d 225, 229 (Tex. App.-Houston
[14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.). A claim based upon malfeasance in connection with
a contract requires proof of the false pretext or fraud in order to become a viable
criminal prosecution. Baker, 986 S.W.2d at 274.
7. A conviction for theft is unsupported by mere evidence that a
defendant accepted money pursuant to a civil contract but failed to perform fully
under the contract. See Jacobs v. State, 230 S.W.3d 225, 231-32 (Tex. App. -
Houston [14th Dist] 2006, no pet); Bokor v. State, 114 S.W.3d 558, 560-61
(Tex. App. - Fort Worth 2002, no pet.); Stockman v. State, 826 S.W.2d 627, 636
(Tex. App. - Dallas 1992, pet. refd).
8. In the case at bar, the court fell into error by failing to apply a
heightened standard of review to this dispute. The panel arrived at an erroneous
conclusion because it did not analyze the evidence under the heightened standard
required of commercial transactions. The evidence shows only a civil contract
dispute, and not the necessary criminal intent to support Petitioner's conviction.
See Phillips v. State, 640 S.W.2d 293, 294 (Tex. Cr. App. 1982)("The only
evidence presented was appellant's failure to perform... which ... is not sufficient
to prove deception.").
Groundfor Review Number Two:
The court of appeals erred by applying an incorrect standard of review.
The failure to return payments made under a contract does not constitute theft.
(Op. at 27)
Reasonsfor Review:
9. The panel decision of the First Court of Appeals requires review
because the court decided an important question of state law that that is in
conflict with the applicable decisions of this Court on the same matter. The
decision of the First Court of Appeals is in conflict with this Court's holding in
Hesbrook v. State, 149 Tex. Crim. 310, 194 S.W.2d 260 (1946).
10. The panel decision of the First Court of Appeals requires review
because the court decided an important question of state law that that is in conflict
with another decision of a Court ofAppeals on the same matter. The panel decision
of the First Court of Appeals is in conflict with the Texarkana Court of Appeals
decision in Baker v. State, 986 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 1998, pet.
ref d) and the Dallas Court of Appeals decision in Cox v. State, 658 S.W.2d 668,
671 (Tex. App.- Dallas 1983, pet. ref d).
11. The panel decision ofthe Court ofAppeals requires review because the
court of appeals has decided an important question of state law, which has not
been, but should be settled by this Court.
Argument andAuthorities:
12. In its opinion of August 28,2014, Petitioner submits the panel fell into
error when it cited Petitioner's failure to refund payments under the contracts as
a basis for finding the evidence sufficient. (Op. at 27). The fact that one fails to
return funds paid in advance after failing to perform a contract does not constitute
theft. See Hesbrook v. State, 149 Tex. Crim. 310,194 S.W.2d 260 (1946); Baker v.
State, 986 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 1998, pet. ref d); Cox v. State,
658 S.W.2d 668,671 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1983, pet. refd).
13. Petitioner submits that by using two improper standards of review to
decide this case, the court of appeals has overreached. The demarcation line
between civil and criminal law should be clear. By stretching the boundaries of the
criminal law to its breaking point, the First Court of Appeals has set a dangerous
precedent. The floodgates of the criminal courts will now be flung open to receive
all manner of cases that should properly be decided in the civil realm.
Groundfor Review Number Three:
The court of appeals erred in its application ofthe "doctrine ofchances." (Op.
at 25-29)
Reasonsfor Review:
14. The panel decision of the First Court of Appeals requires review
because the court decided an important question of state law that is in conflict with
the applicable decisions of this Court. The Court of Appeals decision is in
conflict with this Court's decisions in De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 347
(Tex. Cr. App. 2009) and Plante v. State, 692 S.W.2d 487, 491-92 (Tex. Cr. App.
1985).
15. The panel decision of the First Court of Appeals requires review
because the court decided an important question of state law that that is in conflict
with another decision of a Court of Appeals on the same matter. The panel decision
of the First Court of Appeals is in conflict its sister court's decision in Fox v.
State, 115 S.W.3d 550, 559 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref d).
16. The panel decision ofthe Court ofAppeals requires review because the
court of appeals has decided an important question of state law, which has not
been, but should be settled by this Court.
10
Argument and Authorities:
17. In its opinion of August 28,2014, Petitioner submits the panel fell into
error when it misapplied the "doctrine of chances" to Petitioner's sufficiency of
the evidence claim.
18. The "doctrine of chances" is a legal theory based on the concept of
logical implausibility. See Fox v. State, 115 S.W.3d 550, 559 (Tex. App. - Houston
[14th Dist.] 2002, pet. refd). It provides that the more often unusual events occur
under the similar circumstances, the less likely is the unusual event to be the true
cause. De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 347 (Tex. Cr. App. 2009) ("The
'doctrine of chances' tells us that highly unusual events are unlikely to repeat
themselves inadvertently or by happenstance."); Plante v. State, 692 S.W.2d
487, 491-92 (Tex. Cr. App. 1985).
19. In Texas, the doctrine ofchances has most often been applied when the
State seeks to introduce evidence of extraneous offenses to prove intent or to
rebut a defensive theory of accident or mistake. See, e.g., Plante, 692 S.W.2d at
491-92; Morgan v. State, 692 S.W.2d 877, 882, n.7 (Tex. Cr. App. 1985). In
Plante, the defendant-contractor purchased adobe tile on credit and failed to pay
for it. Plante, 692 S.W.2d at 489-90. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that
evidence of other instances when the defendant failed to pay for goods or services
rendered on credit was admissible, under the doctrine of chances, to show intent.
11
Id. at 493 ("If a person repeatedly fails to pay for items purchased on credit, we
believe the natural inference to be that he or she is seeking to obtain something for
nothing.").
20. In the case at bar, the court of appeals invoked the doctrine of
chances to conclude that Petitioner possessed the requisite intent to deprive the
owners of their property (money) wherein the owners/complaining witnesses were
contracting to purchase and move homes belonging to the Holcombs when she was
unable to fully perform the contracts to move the homes. The panel cited several
instances where the Appellant and her husband did not perform the contracts to
the satisfaction of the clients. (Op. at 4-8). The panel did not, however, compare
the few instances of failure to completely perform in relation to those occasions
where the Petitioner did move houses successfully.
21. The doctrine of chances says that when unusual events repeatedly
occur, the less likely is the unusual event to be the true cause. The doctrine of
chances should not be invoked in a vacuum, however. It is improper to select a few
unusual events and claim they are nefarious without a comparison of the unusual
events in relation to the whole. A factory making widgets, for example, is going
to have a certain percentage of widgets produced that are defective. It would be
improper to pick out the defective widgets and invoke the doctrine of chances
without comparing the percentage of defective widgets to the total number of
12
widgets that were produced.
22. The Petitioner was in the business of moving houses. Numerous
witnesses testified on her behalf that she provided house moving services
successfully, including one of the State's complaining witnesses.3 Without
comparing the number of unsuccessful moves to the number or percentage of
successful house moves, the doctrine of chances cannot be properly invoked. The
panel, therefore, erred in its application of the doctrine of chances.
Groundfor Review Number Four:
The court of appeals erred in finding that Petitioner was not harmed by the
violation of the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution and reforming the
judgment to allow for the lesser included offense of third-degree felony theft.
Reasons for Review:
23. The panel decision of the First Court of Appeals requires review
because the court decided an important question of federal law that is in conflict
with the applicable decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The Court of
Appeals decision is in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
3 The State included in the indictment of Petitioner in September of 2007 for theft of property of
$25,000.00 of, inter alia, Jose Hinojosa and Josefina Hinojosa who purchased a house from
Petitioner for a total contract price of $25,000.00, which was moved, delivered, set up and
completed by the Holcombs. Jose and Josefina Hinojosa's house which they purchased from
Petitioner was set up on a new foundation by Petitioner's husband and completed in January of
2007, eight months prior to Petitioner's indictment for theft of the Hinojosa's $25,000.00. The
State indicted the Holcombs for theft of the entire $25,000.00 fully earned under the contract by
the Holcombs.
13
Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140, 145 (1986).
24. The panel decision of the First Court of Appeals requires review
because the court decided an important question of federal law that is in conflict
with a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the same matter. The panel decision
of the First Court of Appeals is in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith
v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462,468, 125 S. Ct. 1129, 160 L. Ed. 2d 914 (2005).
25. The panel decision ofthe Court of Appeals requires review because the
First Court of Appeals has decided an important question of state and federal law
that is in conflict with a decision of this Court in Exparte Goodman, 152 S.W.3d
67,71-72 (Tex. Crim.App.2004) on the same matter and which should be decided
by this Court.
Argument and Authorities:
26. In its opinion of August 28, 2014, the court of appeals erred in finding
that Petitioner was not harmed by the violation of the double jeopardy clause of the
U.S. Constitution and reforming the judgment to allow for the lesser included
offense of third-degree felony theft.
—• 27. Petitioner was indicted for theft of property (money) belonging to
Marvin Bledsoe ("Bledsoe's) and his testimony was damaging to Petitioner and
different than the other testimony of the other complaining witnesses.4 Petitioner
4 Bledsoe's testimony was that Petitioner picked up a down payment check from Lasha Green
14
and her husband performed under the written contracts on every contract collecting
draws for work performed pursuant to the contracts. The jury heard post-acquittal
fact-finding testimony from Lasha Green ("Green").5
28. Specifically, the jury, having heard testimony from Bledsoe which
clearly was inflammatory, prejudicial and unlike the testimony of any of the other
complaining witnesses (other complaining witnesses merely testified as to
contractual disputes which were made into criminal charges), should not have heard
Green's post-acquittal fact-finding testimony bolstering Bledsoe's testimony. The
lesser included offense concerning the amount alleged to have been taken by
Petitioner, required the same facts and issues to be proven with each instance of
alleged theft to be an element of the offense of aggregated theft. The jury should
not have heard post-acquittal fact-finding testimony which they used to determine
their verdict of guilt or innocence on the lesser included offense of third-degree
and then sped away and was never heard from again until months later when Bledsoe and Green
saw the home sitting on beams on the side of the highway and had it moved themselves by another
mover. The undisputed testimony at trial was that the contract was with Green and the money
paid on the down payment was Green's. The State had to have Green's testimony proving that
Bledsoe could testify as an owner of the property (money). After the State rested its case,
Petitioner requested a directed verdict as to Bledsoe. The State argued against the directed verdict
and the Court said it would consider it. Bledsoe testified that Petitioner took the down payment
and sped away from the bank never be heard from again. The State told the trial court that it could
not give Green's number to Petitioner's attorneys because Green had never responded to the
State's subpoena and they did not have her phone number. The trial court granted the directed
verdict of acquittal.
5Petitioner does not waive her rightto assert that Green did not testify.
15
felony theft.
29. In Ex parte Goodman, this Court decided a case wherein an appellant
would be harmed under Double Jeopardy if the State was allowed to use the facts
of a theft upon which the appellant had been acquitted or dismissed to prove up
facts alleged in another aggregated theft case, even if that aggregated theft case was
a lesser included offense.
"Because the trial court granted the State's motion to
dismiss the first indictment, the Double Jeopardy Clause
prohibits the State from reprosecuting appellant for the
one theft alleged in the first indictment. Proctor v.
State, 841 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). The
Double Jeopardy Clause also prohibits the State from
prosecuting appellant for any lesser offense within the
theft alleged in the first indictment, since, for the purposes
of the Clause, a greater offense and a lesser included
offense are 'the same offence.' Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S.
161, 168, 97 S. Ct. 2221, 53 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1977). The
State, in its current prosecution of appellant for
aggregated theft, may attempt to prove any number of the
aggregated theft's constituent thefts. However, consistent
with the Double Jeopardy Clause, the State may not
attempt to relitigate the facts underlying the theft alleged
in the first indictment in an effort to prove that that
offense or any of its lesser included offenses is one of the
aggregated theft's constituent thefts. In other words, the
State, in proving aggregated theft, may not rely upon
proof of the theft alleged in the first indictment or any of
its lesser included offenses. At appellant's trial for
aggregated theft, the trial court must ensure that the State
does not rely upon such proof. If necessary, the trial court
may require the State to prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that it is not relying upon such proof. If the
State is unable to so prove, then the trial court must select,
16
from among the constituent thefts that the State does
prove, and strike from the jury's consideration, the one
constituent theft that most closely resembles the theft
alleged in the first indictment. In that way, the trial court
will ensure appellant's rights under the Double Jeopardy
Clause."
30. Petitioner was acquitted of the greater offense which included
Bledsoe. The Supreme Court has defined an "acquittal" as a decision "actually
represent[ing] a resolution, correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of
the offense charged." Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462, 468, 125 S. Ct. 1129,
160 L. Ed. 2d 914 (2005) (quoting United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430
U.S. 564, 571, 97 S. Ct. 1349, 51 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1977)).
31. It is understandable as to why the State would want to prosecute
offenses under 31.09 of the Texas Penal Code. Even if there is no evidence of
anything other than civil contractual disputes over a longperiod of time (years) and
the defendant has completed as many projects as not with valid reasons as to why
they were not completedthrough no fault ofthe defendant, the State may still obtain
a conviction from a jury who only sees several people who were dissatisfied with
the outcome.6 "[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause bars a post-acquittal appeal by the
6Petitioner has asked each of her appellate attorneys in this case to appeal on, inter alia, the basis
of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Petitioner's trial attorneys worked against her.
They promised to call witnesses that they did not call. Petitioner has always maintained her
innocence while stating that she was framed by Chris Di Ferrante, an attorney who was suing
Petitioner's parents for their 40+ year homestead in Kemah, Texas. Di Ferrante stalked
Petitioner's jobs to keep houses from being moved and Petitioner's police escorts (house movers
17
prosecution not only when it might result in a second trial, but also ifreversal would
translate into 'further proceedings of some sort, devoted to the resolution of factual
issues going to the elements of the offense charged.'" Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476
U.S. 140, 145-145(1986) (quoting Martin Linen, supra, at 570).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
FOR THESE REASONS, Petitioner respectfully asks this Court to grant
review ofthe decision ofthe court of appeals. Petitioner further prays that this Court
will reverse the judgment ofthe court of appeals and allow Petitioner to have a new
trial on guilt or innocence, instead ofjust a new trial on the punishment phase as is
ordered now.
Donna Gayle Holco
4906 Scott Reef Dr.
Bacliff, Texas 77518
Petitioner, Pro Se
must have police escorts) were witnesses to the stalking. Petitioner's attorney, John Lagrappe,
was not supposed to be Petitioner's attorney as the Court had allowed her to fire Lagrappe.
Lagrappe solicited Petitioner's husband and Petitioner to be their attorney. Petitioner's husband
was forced to keep Lagrappe or the Court would revoke Petitioner's husband's bond. Petitioner
refused under any circumstances to keep Lagrappe and yet, during trial, she was forced to sit next
to Lagrappe while he acted as her attorney and her attorney acted as her husband's attorney. Over
30 subpoenas were sent out, drafted by Petitioner and signed by her attorney. Subpoenaed
documents proving Petitioner's innocence were never requested by her attorneys and witnesses
proving her innocence were never called although they were subpoenaed. Petitioner also asked
her appellate attorneys to address the issue of the fact that Petitioner had paid for the houses and
performed 50% to 90% of the work wherein Petitioner was stopped by issues such as nuisance
abatement liens. A City of Houston building official testified that Petitioner could not have gotten
a permit until Sandi Matthieu removed the nuisance abatement lien. Petitioner did not receive any
allowance off for purchasing and moving the houses sometimes over 40 to 60 miles over a period
of several nights and delivering a garage to Sandi Matthieu property.
18
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE
9.4(i)(3)
Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume
Limitations and Typeface Requirements.
1. This Petition for Discretionary Review complies with the type-
volume limitation of Tex. R. App. Proc. 9.4(i)(2) and (3) because:
This Petition for Discretionary Review contains 4283
words (Microsoft Word), excluding the parts of the
Petition for Discretionary Review exempted by Tex. R.
App. Proc. 9.4(i)(l).
This Petition for DiscretionaryReview complies with
the typeface requirements of Tex. R. App. Proc. 9.4(e) because:
This Petition for Discretionary Review has been
prepared in a conventional proportionally spaced
typeface using Microsoft Word 2013 in Times New
Roman 14 point type.
Donna Gayle
APPENDIX
20
Opinion issued August 28, 2014.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
Jfirsft 3Btatrttf of Cexa*
NO. 01-08-00337-CR
DONNA GAYLE HOLCOMB, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 230th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1141352
OPINION ON REHEARING
Appellant Donna Gayle Holcomb has moved for rehearing. We grant
rehearing, withdraw our opinion and judgment of February 16, 2012, and issue the
following in their stead.
A jury convicted appellant, Donna Gayle Holcomb, of theft of property with
an aggregated value of between $100,000 and $200,000, a second-degree felony.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 31.03(a), (b), (e)(6), 31.09 (West 2011 & Supp.
2014). It assessed punishment at eleven years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
On appeal, Holcomb challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that
the trial court violated her rights under the federal constitution's double jeopardy
clause by naming a complainant in the jury charge and entering judgment on the
jury's guilty finding despite its earlier disposition of that complainant's charges by
means of a directed verdict. We reform the judgment to convict Holcomb of the
third-degree felony theft of property with an aggregated value between $20,000
and $100,000, vacate the sentence, and remand to the trial court for a new
sentencing hearing on the third-degree felony theft conviction. See Tex. Penal
Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(5) (West Supp. 2014).
Background
The State indicted Holcomb for theft of property valued at between
$100,000 and $200,000 by means of deception or coercion and pursuant to one
scheme and continuing course of conduct. The State tried Holcomb alongside her
husband and co-defendant, Curtis Wayne Holcomb.1 The indictment specifically
charged that Holcomb:
on or about VARIOUS DATES BETWEEN JANUARY 15, 2004
THRU SEPTEMBER 20, 2006, did then and there unlawfully,
pursuant to one scheme and continuing course of conduct, without
effective consent, namely, consent induced by deception and/or
coercion, appropriate, by acquiring or otherwise exercising control
over property, namely money, owned by Janet Lester, and/or Jose
Hinojosa, and/or Josefina Hinojosa, and/or Walter Davis, and/or
Marvin Bledsoe, and/or Barbara Heins, and/or Sandra Mathieu, and/or
Mark Theodoridis, with the intent to deprive Janet Lester, and/or Jose
Hinojosa, and/or Josefina Hinojosa, and/or Walter Davis, and/or
Marvin Bledsoe, and/or Barbara Heins, and/or Sandra Mathieu, and/or
Mark Theodoridis of said property, and the total value of the property
appropriated from the above persons was one hundred thousand
dollars or more but under two hundred thousand dollars.
The State later abandoned the charges relating to the Hinojosas.
The Holcombs held themselves out to be in the business of selling and
relocating older houses. At trial, the complainants each testified to having
contracted with the Holcombs to move a house. Although the Holcombs
performed some of the initial work they had promised to do, ineffective
communication, extensive delays, and shoddy workmanship plagued each of the
arrangements. The Holcombs delivered none of the houses to these complainants,
Curtis Holcomb was convicted of third-degree felony theft of property with
an aggregated value of between $20,000 and $100,000. On appeal, this
court affirmed his conviction, overruling his challenge to the legal and factual
sufficiency of the evidence. See Holcomb v. State, No. 01-08-00338- CR,
2011 WL 2089630 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 19, 2011, pet. refd)
(mem. op.).
and they did not refund any of the substantial down payments that the
complainants had made. Disputes broke out, and some of the complainants reported
the Holcombs to the police. The State claimed that Holcomb misappropriated
a total of $108,175 from the complainants. The record contains testimony from
the complainants as follows:
Janet Lester: In March 2005, Lester hired the Holcombs to move a house
she bought from Houston to Navasota. She paid a first installment of $12,000.
Lester understood from the Holcombs that the move would take about three weeks.
Lester had questions about preparing the Navasota lot for the home, so she
attempted to contact the Holcombs, but was unable to reach them at any of the
telephone numbers provided. After three weeks, Holcomb returned Lester's call.
Holcomb informed Lester that the move would not occur for another two to three
weeks. By mid-April, Holcomb had placed the house on one beam and asked
Lester for the next installment of $4,000. Lester paid the installment. Still, the
Holcombs did not move the house. The roof was removed, and the house began to
deteriorate on the original site. The Holcombs would not return Lester's telephone
calls; when Lester finally was able to speak to Holcomb, Holcomb provided her
with excuses for the delay, but did not perform any further work. The house was
red-tagged and eventually torn down by the city.
Walter Davis: In August 2006, Davis contracted with Holcomb to move a
house from Houston to property he owned in Madisonville, Texas. Holcomb told
him that it would take three weeks to accomplish the move. Davis made a down
payment of $8,675. Four weeks later, Holcombe contacted Davis to make
arrangements to meet him for the second installment of $3,000 under the contract.
Holcomb showed Davis that the house had been placed on beams. After that,
Holcomb disappeared; Davis was unable to reach Holcomb at the telephone
numbers provided, and a certified letter he sent to Holcomb went unclaimed.
Mark Theodoridis: In April 2004, Theodoridis signed a contract with
Holcomb in connection with purchasing and transporting a house located in
Pearland to the Theodoridis's property in Goliad which, Theodoridis explained to
Holcomb, was about 175 miles away. Theodoridis made an initial payment of
$10,500.
Theodoridis noticed that the house remained in Pearland beyond the
contracted delivery date of March 15, 2004. In the following weeks, Theodoridis
called Holcomb multiple times about the status of the move. Holcomb gave him
various excuses. Theodoridis paid the second installment of $3,000 in early April
for placing the house on beams for transport. Also around this time, the Holcombs
removed the roof from the house, but did not cover the opening with a tarpaulin.
The house stood unprotected from the elements for several months. In October,
Holcomb informed Theodoridis the house was ready to move and offered to deliver
it within thirty days. Theodoridis informed Holcomb that she was responsible for
the rain damage to the home, but he accepted her offer. After that point,
Theodoridis tried to contact the Holcombs numerous times, but without success.
By March 2005, Holcomb sent Theodoridis a letter asking him to rescind the
contract, which he agreed he would do if she refunded his payment. He did not
hear from her again, although by late summer, the home he had purchased
disappeared from the lot.
Barbara Heins: In the fall of 2004, Heins contracted with the Holcombs to
buy a house and have it placed on her property in Galveston County. Curtis
showed her a home in the Houston Heights area that she agreed to buy. When
Heins made the $17,500 down payment, the Holcombs told her that the home
would be moved to her property by February 1, 2005. In late December 2004,
Holcomb contacted Heins to inform her that they had placed the house on beams
for transport, which triggered another $5,000 payment. The February delivery date
passed without the delivery. Heins learned that, contrary to Holcomb's
representation, the Holcombs had not yet placed the house on beams. Over the
next several weeks, Heins repeatedly telephoned the Holcombs, but to no avail.
They did not answer their phones, and their voicemail was full and would not
allow her to leave a message. At some point, the Holcombs removed the roof of
the house, but failed to cover it with a tarpaulin. In the summer of 2006, Heins
found the house, broken in two, at a vacant lot approximately four miles from her
Galveston County property.
Sandra Mathieu: Mathieu contracted with Holcomb in November 2004 to
move a house from a lot in Houston that was slated for new construction to another
lot in the city that Mathieu owned. When Mathieu made the down payment, she
understood that the move would occur within a month or so. In February 2005,
when Holcomb had the house placed on beams, Mathieu paid the next installment.
By June 2005, Holcomb informed Mathieu that a utility pole on Mathieu's lot
posed an obstruction to the move. By early July, Mathieu had the pole removed
and informed Holcomb so that the house could be delivered. In August 2005,
Holcomb told Mathieu that she could not move the house because of a lien on the
property. Mathieu provided documentation showing that the lien was invalid, but
Holcomb told her that she would have to get the lien officially removed. In the
meantime, the house had to be moved from the lot, so Holcomb arranged to move
it to another property for storage.
Mathieu had the lien removed within a month, but for the next several
months, despite repeated calls to Holcomb, the house was not moved to her lot. By
December 2005, Mathieu, who already had paid Holcomb $25,500, ultimately
hired someone else to complete the move. By then, the home was in poor
condition because the Holcombs failed to cover the top of the house after removing
the roof and vagrants lived in it while it stood on the other property.
Marvin Bledsoe: Bledsoe testified that he and his girlfriend, LeSha Green,
contracted with Holcomb in May 2005 to purchase a house and have it moved to
Brazoria County. Bledsoe and Green met Holcomb at a bank, where Green signed
a contract and gave Holcomb a check for $19,000. When they asked for a copy of
the contract, Holcomb told Green and Bledsoe to follow her to a Kinko's store.
Once on the road, Bledsoe recounted, Holcomb began running red lights and stop
signs. Unable to keep up, Bledsoe called Holcomb a bit later. Holcomb explained
that she had been in a rush to reach her father, who had suffered a heart attack.
Holcomb promised to be in contact soon, but Bledsoe's later attempts to reach her
were fruitless. Several weeks later, Bledsoe saw Curtis working on the house that
was to be moved. The two spoke briefly, but Bledsoe was unable to reach either
Holcomb or Curtis afterwards. After filing a police report, Bledsoe finally spoke
to Holcomb; problems nevertheless persisted.
One night in October 2005, a neighbor called Bledsoe and informed him that
the house was being moved. Bledsoe and Green raced over, where they saw the
Holcombs and several other individuals pulling the house out into the street. Due
to its height and trees obstructing the path, however, the house was moved just 200
yards. Over the next two weeks, Bledsoe tried to contact Holcomb, but again, was
unable to reach her. One night, the house was gone. When Bledsoe finally
reached Holcomb by phone, she told him not to worry about the house and that he
would never find it. A few weeks later, while taking a shortcut home, Bledsoe
noticed a familiar house that was advertised for sale. He entered the house, and,
satisfied that it was the house he had purchased, had it relocated at his own
expense. Bledsoe,described the house's condition by the end as "destroyed": all
of the windows were broken, and it had a big hole in the roof.
Cross-examination of Bledsoe focused on the ownership of the $19,000 paid
to Holcomb. Bledsoe expressed that, due to his relationship with Green, he felt
that both of them owned the money. Under further questioning, however, he
conceded that the funds used were held by either Green or by S.A.G. Enterprises,
L.L.C., a business entity managed by Green:
[Counsel]: [T]he funds actually came out of a bank account from
S.A.G. Enterprises, L.L.C. or LeSha Green, correct?
[Bledsoe]: I don't think it was S.A.G. It was from LeSha because
[payment occurred at] Bank of America. . . . [Holcomb]
wouldn't accept a personal check.
[Counsel]: But didn't S.A.G. Enterprises, L.L.C. bank at Bank of
America?
[Bledsoe]: Yes.
[Counsel]: And you, in fact, did not have an account at Bank of
America?
[Bledsoe]: Yes, correct.
[Counsel]: So, it couldn't have been your funds?
[Bledsoe]: Correct.
At the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief, the Holcombs moved for
directed verdict challenging, among other things, the sufficiency of the evidence
relating to Bledsoe's ownership of the money transferred to the Holcombs. The
court heard argument from both sides and reserved its ruling until the following
day to allow time for review of Bledsoe's testimony on the issue of ownership.
The State rested its case and the next morning, the court granted the motion for
directed verdict in part, explaining:
The Court having reviewed the record and [Bledsoe's] testimony. ..
regarding the check, regarding his position as manager and specifically
a question that was asked of Mr. Bledsoe—the question was, "So it
couldn't have been your funds, correct?" And his response was,
"Correct." The defendant's Motion for Instructed Verdict as to the
complainant Marvin Bledsoe is granted in each case.
The defense went forward with its case, with Holcomb testifying on her own
behalf. On cross-examination, she stated that she had made the contract with
Green and that it was Green who had given her the check.
The State then called Green to testify in rebuttal.2 Green stated that although
the funds came directly from S.A.G. Enterprises, L.L.C.'s business account, they
ultimately belonged to both her and Bledsoe:
2 Although the defense had objected earlier to relitigation of the ownership
issue, the court did not make a ruling on the record.
10
[Counsel]: At some point in time did you get funds to pay for this
house?
[Green]: Yes, ma'am.
[Counsel]: What account did those funds come from?
[Green]: At a business account, S.A.G. Enterprises.
[Counsel]: Whose business is that?
[Green]: Marvin and I.
[Counsel]: Whose funds were used to purchase the house?
[Green]: Those were our funds together.
While cross-examining Green, defense counsel was called to the bench in
the midst of a series of questions regarding S.A.G. Enterprises. There, the court
asked about the relevancy of the questions and advised:
If the issue is ownership, the issue is that [of] ownership of the funds,
not the ownership of the company. So, if you ask [Green] about—if
this is being offered for impeachment, then let's get straight to that
and not about an issue of resurrecting a corporation or who didn't
resurrect a corporation. If it's to impeach Mr. Bledsoe, let's get after
that.
With that, counsel stopped pursuing the line of questioning.
Once both sides rested, the court asked if there were any objections to the
jury charge, to which Holcomb's counsel responded, "We have nothing, Your
Honor." The charge, however, instructedthe jury to convict Holcomb upon finding,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that she committed theft by deception against "Janet
Lester, or Walter Davis, or Marvin Bledsoe, or Barbara Heins, or Sandra
11
Mathieu, or Mark Theodoridis" (emphasis added). The jury subsequently found
Holcomb guilty of second-degree felony theft of property.
Discussion
We would normally begin our discussion with an analysis of Holcomb's
evidentiary sufficiency challenge. As a prudential matter, courts generally refrain
from passing on constitutional questions unless necessary to the disposition of a
case. See In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 349 (Tex. 2003) ("As a rule, we only
decide constitutional questions when we cannot resolve issues on nonconstitutional
grounds."). In this case, Holcomb's evidentiary sufficiency challenge depends in
part on our resolution of her double jeopardy challenge: if we conclude that the
trial court's directed verdict on Bledsoe's complaints against Holcomb constitutes
an acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause, then it was error to name Bledsoe
in the jury charge and, in addressing Holcomb's evidentiary sufficiency challenge,
the $19,000 that she allegedly misappropriated from Bledsoe cannot be considered
toward the aggregate amount of the theft. We therefore begin by examining
Holcomb's contention that the trial court erred by naming Bledsoe in the jury
charge after the directed verdict had already disposed of Bledsoe's complaints
againsther, and that this error subjected her to a doublejeopardy violation.
12
7. Double Jeopardy
The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall "be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."3 U.S. Const, amend.
V; see also Tex. Const, art. I § 14; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.10 (West
2005) (containing similar provisions). This broad prohibition includes the
requirement that a defendant not be subjected to "postacquittal factfinding
proceedings going to guilt or innocence." Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462,
467, 125 S. Ct. 1129, 1134 (2005) (quoting Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140,
145, 106 S. Ct. 1745, 1749 (1986)).
Holcomb did not make a double jeopardy objection at trial. Nonetheless,
due to the "fundamental nature of double jeopardy protections," she may raise her
double jeopardy claim for the first time on appeal provided that (1) the undisputed
facts show the double jeopardy violation is clearly apparent on the face of the
record and (2) enforcement of usual rules of procedural default would serve no
legitimate state interests. Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. Crim. App.
2000).
This constitutional guarantee is applicable to the states through the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. Maryland, 395
U.S. 784, 794, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 2062 (1969).
13
A. Standard ofreview
In the double jeopardy context, determination of whether an acquittal has
occurred "is not to be controlled by the form of the judge's action" but instead by
examining whether the judge's ruling, "whatever its label, actually represented] a
resolution, correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense
charged." United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 571, 97 S. Ct.
1349, 1354-55 (1977); see also Benavidez v. State, 323 S.W3d 179, 181 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010) (observing that appellate court may order entry of judgment of
acquittal only when either trial court's ruling amounts to de facto but
unacknowledged acquittal or appellate court finds evidence is insufficient to
support conviction). The determination of whether an acquittal occurred turns on
"whether the judgment resolved any of the ultimate elements in the defense."
Moreno v. State, 294 S.W3d 594, 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
B. Analysis
1. Nature ofdirected verdict
Under the first prong of Gonzalez, then, we consider whether the trial court's
directed verdict constitutes an acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause. After
the State rested its case-in-chief, Holcomb presented a motion for directed verdict
asserting, interalia, that there was legally insufficient evidence that Bledsoe owned
14
the $19,000 that Holcomb allegedly stole from him.4 In granting the directed
verdict as to Bledsoe immediately after the State rested its case, the trial court
referred to Bledsoe's testimony in explaining the basis of its ruling, essentially,
that the evidence showed—contrary to the allegations in the indictment—that
Bledsoe was not the owner of the $19,000 given to Holcomb.
Ownership is an essential element of the offense of theft. See Tex. Penal
Code Ann. § 31.03(a) ("A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates
property with intent to deprive the owner of property."). The Texas Penal Code
defines an "owner" as a person who "has title to the property, possession of the
property, whether lawful or not, or a greater right to possession of the property than
the actor." Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(35)(A) (West Supp. 2014); see also
Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W3d 654, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (applying
definition as used in jury charge to assess sufficiency of evidence). The indictment
names Bledsoe as owner, but the funds were not held under Bledsoe's name, and
Bledsoe conceded that he could not claim ownership of them. The trial court's
directed verdict is expressly based on those facts. The trial court, therefore,
In a prosecution for theft, the State has the burden of proving ownership.
Freeman v. State, 707 S.W.2d 597, 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); see also
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a) (West Supp. 2014) (theft requires that
accused "unlawfully appropriate^ property with intent to deprive owner of
property).
15
determined that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction
because Bledsoe was not the owner of the funds.
It follows, then, that the trial court's inclusion of Bledsoe's name in the jury
charge subjected Holcomb to further factfinding proceedings going to Holcomb's
guilt or innocence on Bledsoe's complaint, in contravention of double jeopardy
protections. See Smith, 543 U.S. at 467-68, 125 S. Ct. at 1133-34 (declaring that
Fifth Amendment prohibits reexamination of court-decreed acquittal). The face
of the record thus makes apparent that Holcomb was impermissibly subjected to a
double jeopardy violation. See Gonzalez, 8 S.W.3d at 643.
2. Legitimate state interests
Under the second prong of Gonzalez, we ask whether any legitimate state
interests would be served by applying the usual waiver rule against Holcomb's
double jeopardy claim. See id. "In cases where the trial court either knew or
should have known of the jeopardy problem, no purpose is served in enforcing the
state procedural rule [regarding waiver of double jeopardy claims not raised at
trial,] and the defendant may assert this interest after trial." Beltran v. State, 30
S.W.3d 532, 533 n.l (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (quoting DeMoss v.
State, 12 S.W.3d 553, 559 n.2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. refd)); see
State v. Torres, 805 S.W.2d 418, 423 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Shaffer v. State, All
S.W.2d 873, 875-76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (collecting cases dating back to late
16
nineteenth century); Grant v. State, 247 S.W.3d 360, 370 n.8 (Tex. App.—Austin
2008, pet. refd); Roy v. State, 76 S.W.3d 87, 94 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2002, no pet.).
Here, the trial court was aware or should have been aware that it was
subjecting Holcomb to a double jeopardy violation by including Bledsoe in the
jury charge. Just days before, the court had granted the directed verdict as to
Bledsoe. See Shaffer, All S.W.2d at 875-76; Beltran, 30 S.W.3d at 533 n.l
(noting that "the complained-of jeopardy problem consists of two convictions,
before the same judge and jury, arising out of conduct that occurred during the
same criminal episode"); Honeycutt v. State, 82 S.W.3d 545, 547 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2002, pet. refd) ("[B]ecause the two convictions were in the same court,
on the same day, before the same judge, and were based on the same evidence, the
enforcement of the statutory requirements would have served no state interest.").
We therefore hold that no legitimate state interests would be served by applying
the waiver rule to Holcomb's double jeopardy claim.
777. State *s Challenges to Double Jeopardy Claim
A. Validity ofruling
The State contends that Holcomb's double jeopardy claim does not
withstand scrutiny because the trial court had no authority—under either the
common law or the Code of Criminal Procedure—to grant a directed verdict in this
17
case. This purported lack of authority, the State claims, rendered the directed
verdict a legal nullity incapable of offending the Double Jeopardy Clause. The
Court of Criminal Appeals recently refused to countenance this same argument, in
part because—just as here—the State failed to interpose this objection at trial. See
Moreno, 294 S.W3d at 601-02 (holding that trial court's grant of defendant's
motion for directed verdict before State rested case-in-chief constituted acquittal
for double jeopardy purposes).
In any event, challenges to a court's authority to render an acquittal are
almost never reviewable on appeal. The Double Jeopardy Clause generally bars
appellate review of judgments of acquittal, even when those judgments are
erroneously made. Sanabria v. United States, A31 U.S. 54, 64, 69, 98 S. Ct. 2170,
2178, 2181 (1978); State v. Blackshere, 344 S.W3d 400, 406 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011); seeFongFoo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 143, 82 S. Ct. 671, 672 (1962)
(concluding that court's directed verdict of acquittal could not be reviewed without
violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, despite fact that it rested upon an
"egregiously erroneous foundation"). Only two remotely similar instances exist in
which the double jeopardy bar does not preclude such a challenge: (1) where the
court lacked jurisdiction over the case or the defendant and (2) where jeopardy
failed to attach in the first place. See Ball v.. United States, 163 U.S. 662, 669-70
(1896); State v. Fisher, 212 S.W3d 378, 380-81 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet.
18
ref d). Neither exception applies here. There is no contention—and nothing in the
record to suggest—that the court lacked jurisdiction over this case or Holcomb.
And because this was a jury trial, "jeopardy attache[d] when the jury [was]
empaneled and sworn." Moreno, 294 S.W3d at 597; cf. Fisher, 212 S.W.3d at 381
(holding that jeopardy did not attach because "no jury was ever empaneled or
sworn, no evidence was offered or received, and no plea was entered by [the
defendant] after the announcement of ready by both sides").
B. Retractability ofruling
The State alternatively contends that, even if the trial court had authority to
render a directed verdict, its failure to actually direct the jury to return a particular
verdict and its inclusion of Bledsoe in the jury charge amounted to an implied
retraction of the directed verdict. The Double Jeopardy Clause, however,
"prohibits reexamination of a court-decreed acquittal to the same extent it prohibits
reexamination of an acquittal by jury verdict." Smith, 543 U.S. at 467, 125 S. Ct.
at 1133. In Smith, the Supreme Court specifically held:
If, after a facially unqualified midtrial dismissal of one count, the trial
has proceeded to the defendant's introduction of evidence, the
acquittal must be treated as final, unless the availability of
reconsideration has been plainly established by pre-existing rule or
case authority expressly applicable to midtrial rulings on the sufficiency
of the evidence .... [A]ny contention that the Double Jeopardy
Clause must itself (even absent provision by the State) leave open a
way of correcting legal errors is at odds with the well- established rule
that the bar will attach to a preverdict acquittal that is patently wrong
in law.
19
Mat 473, 125 S. Ct. at 1137.
The State does not identify, and our own examination of relevant precedent
fails to reveal, any pre-existing rule or authority "plainly establish[ing]" the ability
of a Texas trial court to reconsider a partial midtrial directed verdict like the one
granted in Holcomb's case. See id. The Texarkana Court of Appeals recently
confirmed the lack of such a rule, noting that "[i]n Texas, there is no such statute,
rule, or case" allowing for reconsideration under the rule set out in Smith. Towery,
262 S.W.3d at 592.
The jury's failure to return a verdict duplicating the trial court's directed
verdict does not undermine the finality of the trial court's ruling either. No pre
existing rule or authority requires a trial court, after holding the evidence to be
legally insufficient to support some element of the State's case, to submit that
decision to the jury.6 See State v. Lewallen, 927 S.W.2d 737, 739 n.2 (Tex. App.—
5
Towery v. State further concluded that Smith v. Massachusetts did not apply
because the trial court's directed verdict of acquittal was a "clerical error"
that it later corrected. 262 S.W.3d 586, 596-97 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
2008, pet. refd). Towery also noted that nothing in the record showed that
the trial court intended to enter an acquittal and that there was no evidence
of reliance on the ruling by any of the litigants. Id. at 593-97. In contrast,
the record here shows that the trial court explicitly considered the
sufficiencyof the evidence and explained its ruling.
The State points to article 38.17 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure as
the authority for reconsidering a directed verdict, but that provision applies
only under specific conditions; it does not establish a general rule. See Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.17 (West 2005) (providing that "[i]n all
20
Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) ("A 'directed verdict' is commonly defined as the action
taken by a trial judge in a jury trial to decide the issues in the case without allowing
them to be submitted to thejury because, as a matter of law, the party with the
burden of proof has failed to make a prima facie case for jury consideration."
(emphasis added)).
On the contrary, the widely-accepted rule is that finality will be accorded to
a directed verdict based on a finding of insufficient evidence, even when that
finding is unilaterally issued by a trial court.7 See, e.g., Smith, 543 U.S. at 464-75,
125 S. Ct. at 1132-38 (holding that Double Jeopardy Clause barred trial court from
submitting count to jury when court had previously acquitted defendant of that
count and rejecting argument that court's submission of that count to jury was
permissible retraction of prior acquittal); Moreno, 294 S.W.3d at 600 (recognizing
that, in jury trial case, that trial court's directed verdict triggered double jeopardy
protections). This rule promotes the principles embodied in the Double Jeopardy
Clause identified by the Supreme Court in Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184,
cases where, by law, two witnesses, or one with corroborating
circumstances, are required to authorize a conviction, if the requirement be
not fulfilled, the court shall instruct the jury to render a verdict of acquittal,
and they are bound by the instruction").
7
There are few exceptions, none of which apply to this case, such as when the
judge grants an acquittal notwithstanding the jury's verdict. See United
States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 339-52, 95 S. Ct. 1013, 1020-27 (1975)
(discussing constitutional bounds of double jeopardy).
21
187-88, 78 S. Ct. 221, 223 (1957). In Green, the Court explained that the clause
aims to protect the individual against repeated attempts to convict him of an alleged
offense, which would subject that person "to embarrassment, expense and ordeal,"
and "compelf] him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well
as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty."
Id. at 187-88.
The Supreme Court also warned that "[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause's
guarantee cannot be allowed to become a potential snare for those who reasonably
rely upon it." Smith, 543 U.S. at 473, 125 S. Ct. at 1137. It explained that, "when
... the trial has proceeded to the defendant's presentation of his case, the
possibility of prejudice arises. The seeming dismissal may induce a defendant to
present a defense to the undismissed charges when he would be better advised to
stand silent. Id. at 472, 125 S. Ct. at 1136. In particular, the Court noted that in
jurisdictions like Texas, that consider the entire record in reviewing evidentiary
sufficiency challenges, "the defendant who puts on a case runs 'the risk that... he
will bolster the Government case enough for it to support a verdict of guilty,'" or,
through the defendant's own evidence, "may lay the foundation for otherwise
inadmissible evidence in the Government's initial presentation or provide
corroboration for essential elements of the Government's case." Id. at 472, 125 S.
Ct. at 1137 (quoting McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 215, 91 S. Ct. 1454,
22
1471 (1971)). And in all jurisdictions, the Court observed, the danger of allowing
for the retraction of an acquittal creates the danger that a partial acquittal on one
count would give the defendant a false sense of security and thereby "induce the
defendant to present defenses to the remaining counts that are inadvisable—for
example, a defense that entails admission of guilt on the acquitted count." Id.
This case exemplifies the dangers identified in Smith. Bledsoe's inclusion in
the jury charge effectively gave the State a second try at getting a conviction that it
could not have obtained at the conclusion of its case-in-chief. Also, the directed
verdict may well have lulled Holcomb into testifying on the issue that led to the
State's ability to call Bledsoe's girlfriend as a rebuttal witness.8 As a result, we
hold, in keeping with Smith and Moreno, that the Double Jeopardy Clause
precluded the trial court from retracting its directed verdict.
V. Evidentiary Sufficiency
Holcomb contends that, as a result of the de facto acquittal on Bledsoe's
complaints, the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to prove that Holcomb
committed theft of property with an aggregated value of at least $100,000, the
The fact that Holcomb's husband was her co-defendant also may have
implicated her reliance interests. See Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462,
471-72 n.6, 125 S. Ct. 1129, 1136-37 n.6 (2005) (discussing implications
for multiple defendant cases). The ruling as to Bledsoe may have induced
Holcomb to testify, perhaps hoping that her testimony would aid in her
husband's defense as well.
23
minimum amount required to support a second-degree theft conviction. See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(6)(A).
A. Standard ofReview
This Court reviews legal and factual sufficiency challenges using the same
standard of review. Ervin v. State, 331 S.W.3d 49, 54 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2010, pet. refd) (construing majority holding of Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d
893, 912, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)). Under this standard, evidence is
insufficient to support a conviction if, considering all the record evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict, no rational factfinder could have found that
each essential element of the charged offense was proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, AA3 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); In
re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 361, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1071 (1970); Laster v. State, 275
S.W.3d 512, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the
evidence is insufficient under this standard in two circumstances: (1) the record
contains no evidence, or merely a "modicum" of evidence, probative of an element
of the offense; or (2) the evidence conclusively establishes a reasonable doubt. See
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 314, 318 n.11, 320, 99 S. Ct. at 2786, 2789 n.ll; Laster, 275
S.W.3d at 518; Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 750. Additionally, the evidence is
24
insufficient as a matter of law if the acts alleged do not constitute the criminal
offense charged. Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 750.
An appellate court determines "whether the necessary inferences are
reasonable based upon the combined and cumulative force of all the evidence
when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict." Hooper v. State, 21A
S.W.3d 9, 16-17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). In viewing the record, direct and
circumstantial evidence are treated equally. Id. Circumstantial evidence is as
probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial
evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Id. An appellate court presumes
that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences in favor of the verdict and
defers to that resolution. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S. Ct. at 2793; Clayton,
235 S.W.3d at 778. An appellate court also defers to the factfinder's evaluation of
the credibility and weight of the evidence. See Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 750.
B. Analysis
1. Intent
Holcomb contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's
finding that she acted with the criminal intent to deprive the owners of their
property—at most, she claims, the evidence shows failure to perform her
contractual duties, which is enough to support civil claims for breach of contract,
25
but not theft. For purposes of the theft statute, the appropriation of property is
unlawful if the defendant takes it without the owner's consent. Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 31.03(b). The owner cannot effectively consent to letting the defendant
take the property if the defendant uses deception to induce consent. Id.
§ 31.01(3)(A). Relevant to this case, the Penal Code defines "deception" as:
• creating or confirming by words or conduct a false impression of law
or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the
transaction, and that the actor does not believe to be true; [or].. .
• promising performance that is likely to affect the judgment of another
in the transaction and that the actor does not intend to perform or
knows will not be performed, except that failure to perform the
promise in issue without other evidence of intent or knowledge is not
sufficient proof that the actor did not intend to perform or knew the
promise would not be performed.
M§31.01(1)(A),(E).
In support of her contention, Holcomb points to evidence that she and her
husband partially performed their contracts with the complainants. She and her
husband prepared some of the houses to be moved by securing permits, removing
roofs, loading the houses on beams, and hiring police escorts. They actually
transported parts of some of the houses, and Holcomb gave various explanations
for the delays and problems in moving each of the houses. According to the State,
however, application of the "doctrine of chances" shows that sufficient
circumstantial evidence exists to allow a rational factfinder to find beyond a
26
reasonable doubt that Holcomb did not intend to deliver the complainants' houses
at the time she entered into the contracts.
The doctrine of chances is "the principle that evidence of the repetition of
similar unusual events over time demonstrate a decreasing probability that those
unusual events occurred by chance." Martin v. State, 173 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). Here, the evidence shows that the Holcombs repeatedly:
(1) failed to take reasonable steps to protect the houses from the weather and other
potential causes of damage in preparing the houses for transport; (2) had extensive
delays, which they failed to explain to the complainants; (3) avoided the
complainants' attempts to have them address and explain the delays, sometimes for
months at a time; (4) failed to transport the houses even after the complainants
eliminated the obstacles that Holcomb identified; and (5) never refunded any
payments made.
Holcomb points to Thomas v. State, 753 S.W2d 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988),
and Phillips v. State, 640 S.W.2d 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982), in support of her
contention that the State failed to prove that her failure to fully perform on the
contracts was evidence of criminal intent. Thomas is inapposite because, having
charged the defendant with the theft of a car he had acquired under a car rental
contract, the State had to prove that the defendant intended to deprive the owner of
the car rather than withhold it only temporarily. 753 S.W3d at 690-91. The facts
27
relevant to Holcomb's intent present no question of temporary withholding or
permanent deprivation. In Phillips, the defendant contracted to build an addition to
the complainant's house for approximately $21,000 and asked for a down payment
of approximately $7,000. Id. at 294. The defendant drew up some plans and
conferred with the complainant. The defendant informed the complainant on several
occasions, however, that he was having difficulty getting the plumbers to do their
job and, ultimately, could not perform. Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals set aside
the conviction and rendered an acquittal, holding that "[t]he only evidence presented
was [defendant]'s failure to perform, which ... is not sufficient to prove deception."
Id. (citing Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(2)(E)).
Unlike Phillips, the record in this case does not show just a single failure to
perform. It shows a pattern of conduct in which Holcomb collected payments,
agreed to move houses, accomplished one or two tasks that triggered additional
installment payments, but then consistently failed to transport the houses to their
contracted destinations. The sequence of events is unusual, and is repeated often
enough to warrant application of the doctrine of chances. The jury was free to
resolve the conflicting versions of the testimony it heard from the complainants
and Holcomb and to make its own determinations as to credibility. Viewed in the
light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that the evidence would allow a
28
rational factfinder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Holcomb did not intend
to fulfill the contracts when she entered into them.
2. Aggregated value ofproperty taken
The Penal Code provides that amounts obtained by theft pursuant to one
scheme or continuing course of conduct, whether from the same or several sources,
may be considered as one offense, allowing for aggregation of the property value
in determining the grade of the offense. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.09.
"Aggregated theft is the sum of all its parts." Dickens v. State, 981 S.W.2d 186,
188 (Tex.,Crim. App. 1998). "Apart is a completed theft whose elements have all
been proven." Id. Consequently, while the State is not required to prove every
individual appropriation when an individual is charged with the unlawful
appropriation of property with an aggregated value pursuant to one scheme or
continuing course of conduct, the evidence will not be sufficient to sustain a
conviction unless the State shows that the defendant illegally appropriated enough
property to meet the minimum aggregated value alleged. Lehman v. State, 792
S.W.2d 82, 85-86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).
The trial court granted a directed verdict acquitting Holcomb of the theft
charges relatingto Bledsoe, and, as we have explained, the Double Jeopardy Clause
bars us from reviewing the merits of that ruling on appeal. See, e.g., Sanabria,
437 U.S. at 69, 98 S. Ct. at 2181 (holding that Double Jeopardy Clause
29
barred appellate review of trial court's judgment of acquittal for insufficient
evidence). As a result, we do not consider Green's rebuttal testimony, which was
elicited after the trial court's ruling, in determining whether the evidence supports
the conviction for second-degree felony theft. See Smith, 543 U.S. at 473, 125 S.
Ct. at 1137 (holding that acquittal is final when rendered).
The State presented testimony from David Pilant, a fraud examiner with the
Harris County District Attorney's Office, concerning the aggregate value of the
property taken. Pilant reviewed the canceled checks drawn on the six complainants'
accounts and made out to the Holcombs during the relevant period and calculated
a total of $108,175. This total includes the $19,000 allegedly stolen from Bledsoe,
which should have been excluded. Second-degree felony theft, however, requires
proof that the property stolen had a minimum value of $100,000. Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 31.03(e)(6). We therefore hold that the evidence is insufficient to support
the jury verdict finding Holcomb guilty of the theft of property with an
aggregated value of between $100,000 and $200,000.
VI. Disposition
Based on the double jeopardy violation and the lack of evidence to support
the conviction, Holcomb contends that she is entitled to a complete acquittal or a
new trial. She claims she was egregiously harmed because, without the amount
attributable to Bledsoe, she—"at the very worst"—would have been convicted of
30
the third-degree felony for theft of property with an aggregated value of between
$20,000 and $100,000. Holcomb, however, requested and obtained a lesser-
included instruction on that third-degree felony offense.
If the evidence is legally sufficient to support that lesser-included offense
and no harm would otherwise result from the double jeopardy violation, we may
reverse the judgment and remand to the trial court to reform the judgment to reflect
conviction of the lesser-included offense. See Bowen v. State, 31A S.W.3d 427,
432 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). We consider whether Bledsoe's erroneous inclusion
in the jury charge caused harm that cannot be remedied by disposing of the appeal
in this way.
Reformation would not be appropriate if the record shows a lack of unanimity on
the constituent elements of the lesser-included offense. See Cosio v. State, 353
S.W.3d 766, 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see also Tex. Const, art. V, § 13; Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.29(a) (West Supp. 2014). In this case, the record
shows that the jury could have reached a verdict that Holcomb committed theft of
an aggregated amount in excess of $100,000 only by unanimously finding that
Holcomb misappropriated all of the funds from all six complainants according to
the State's proof at trial. Subtracting the amount attributable to Bledsoe's
31
complaints, Holcomb misappropriated $89,175.9 We hold that any harm resulting
from the inclusion of Bledsoe in the charge can be remedied by reforming the
judgment to reflect conviction of the lesser-included offense of theft of property
with an aggregated value of between $20,000 and $100,000.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the trial
court to reform the conviction to reflect the third-degree felony of theft of property
with an aggregated value of between $20,000 and $100,000, and to conduct a new
punishment hearing.
Jane Bland
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
Publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
9 Holcomb does not dispute the amounts proven with respect to the remaining
five complainants.
32