Michelle Statler v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 7, 2005
• Docket: 13-04-00120-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                              NUMBER 13-04-120-CR

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG

MICHELLE STATLER,                                                                      Appellant,

                                                             v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                    Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

                  Before Justices Yañez, Castillo, and Garza

                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellant was convicted of credit card abuse and now appeals, arguing that there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof at trial because she was charged with abusing a debit check card and the evidence proved that she abused a credit card.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 32.31 (Vernon Supp. 2004B05) (credit card or debit card abuse); Sanders v. State, 119 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (stating the well-settled standard of review for legal sufficiency challenges).  Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence proves that appellant used a debit check card without the cardholder=s authorization.  Appellant used the debit check card at a local grocery store, which allowed her the option of either entering a pin number or signing the sales receipt, as is customary in credit-card transactions.  Appellant apparently signed the sales receipt instead of entering a pin number, as is common in debit-card transactions.  Appellant now claims, without citing any legal authority, that there was no evidence she used a debit card.  We disagree.  The evidence adduced at trial proved that the card used by appellant was issued to the cardholder as a debit check card, not as a credit card.  Appellant=s sole issue is therefore overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

Justice

Concurring Memorandum Opinion

by Justice Errlinda Castillo.

Do not publish. 

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 7th day of July, 2005.