DocketNumber: No. F-85-774
Citation Numbers: 748 P.2d 519
Judges: Brett, Bussey, Parks
Filed Date: 12/23/1987
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/2/2022
OPINION
The appellant, Thompson Monroe, was tried by judge after waiving a jury trial in Bryan County District Court, Case No. CRF-83-69, and convicted of three (3) counts of Unlawful Disposal of Encumbered Property (21 O.S.1981, § 1834), before the Honorable James R. Wolfe, Associate District Judge. Punishment was set at three (3) years. On appeal, we affirm.
On November 13,1980, appellant secured a line of credit from the National Livestock Credit Corporation (NLCC). Appellant offered $102,000.00 worth of cattle as collar eral, and signed a security agreement. In signing this agreement, the appellant purported to own two hundred fifty-three (253) head of cattle and agreed that the proceeds of any sales of the cattle would be turned over to the NLCC. NLCC filed lien searches and performed an inspection of the cattle, and determined that the appellant was eligible for a loan.
As the appellant’s sole assignment of error, he alleges that there was insufficient evidence presented to prove actual intent to defraud. Appellant correctly states that specific intent to defraud is required in order to find him guilty of Unlawful Disposal of Encumbered Property under 21 O.S.1981, § 1834. Hubbell v. State, 585 P.2d 369, 375 (Okla.Crim.App.1978). However, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence presented to the judge to support a finding of intent to defraud.
It is well established that when one is being tried for an offense, the commission of which requires specific intent, such intent can be shown through circumstantial evidence. Carpitcher v. State, 586 P.2d 75, 77 (Okla.Crim.App.1978). In the present case, NLCC extended credit to the appellant based on the appellant’s representation that he owned the cattle which he was using as collateral. The agreement between the two parties required that any sale proceeds be turned over to NLCC as payment on the debt. The record shows that, on three different occasions, appellant sold cattle, and withheld the proceeds without the consent of NLCC. He attempted to stall NLCC investigators when they tried to inspect the cattle a second time by avoid-mg them and making excuses as to the whereabouts of the missing cattle.
When a case is tried to a judge, after the defendant has waived a jury trial, and there are controverted questions of fact, the trial court’s findings will not be disturbed on appeal if there is evidence which reasonably supports those findings. Fox v. State, 556 P.2d 1281, 1284 (Okla.Crim.App.1976). Because the evidence presented is sufficient to support the finding of intent to defraud, we find the appellant’s assignment of error to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.