Tressler, Timothy Allen v. State
This text of Tressler, Timothy Allen v. State (Tressler, Timothy Allen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
AFFIRM; Opinion issued February 27, 2013
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas ──────────────────────────── No. 05-11-00846-CR ────────────────────────────
TIMOTHY ALLEN TRESSLER, Appellant V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-80803-10 ═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang Opinion By Justice Francis
Timothy Allen Tressler appeals his conviction for impersonating a public servant. After
finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at two years in prison, probated for
two years. In a single issue, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
conviction and claims the trial court should have granted his motion for a directed verdict. We
affirm.
Appellant claims the evidence is legally insufficient because the witnesses= testimony is
inconsistent.
B1B We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under well established standards.
See Jackson v. Virginia, 444 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010). The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant
impersonated Aa public servant with intent to induce another to submit to his pretended official
authority or to rely on his pretended official acts.@ TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 37.11(a)(1) (West
2011). The actor need not succeed in actually inducing anyone to submit to or rely on his
assumed authority; all that is required is the impersonation and the intent. See id.
Appellant was indicted for impersonating Aa peace officer with intent to induce Pamela
Humphries to submit to the pretended official authority of [appellant] or to rely on the pretended
official acts of [appellant] by stating he was a police officer.@
Humphries is the property manager at Greenbriar Apartments in Plano. On the morning
of February 10, 2010, a dispute arose between the occupants of apartment 309 and apartment 310
regarding noise. Apartment 309 was leased to Richard Salsbury, and April Byrd was listed as an
authorized occupant. Shortly thereafter, Humphries served an eviction notice on Byrd.
Around one in the afternoon, appellant came in the manager=s office and asked for
information from the lease file on apartment 309. Humphries told him she could not give out any
information because he was not on the lease nor was he listed as an approved occupant of
apartment 309. Appellant said he wanted the Fair Housing information from the file.
Humphries told him he could get a form on the internet to file a complaint. Appellant then
implied he was a police officer. He said he had Abeen on the phone with his lieutenant@ and Athis
was going to cause him problems.@ Appellant told Humphries he had the district attorney on
speed dial and the district attorney said she had to provide the information to him. He also
claimed he was in a motorcycle group for police officers.
B2B During this conversation, he mentioned he had seen a vehicle with a broken window.
Appellant said he called in Aas an off-duty officer@ to give the VIN number and get information on
the vehicle, but that it was not stolen. He told Humphries he took photographs of her license plate
for evidence as well as photographs of the damage to the door of apartment 309. Humphries said
this frightened her because she did not know if he could find out where she lived, and she felt
appellant was trying to intimidate her.
Sue Redford was the district manager for the Greenbriar Apartments. When she walked
in the manager=s office, appellant was asking for information from the lease file for apartment
309. After he was told he could not have access to the file, he identified himself as an undercover
officer. He said he had just spoken with the D.A.=s office and Ahe was advised to request Fair
Housing information from the apartment office.@ Redford said appellant was trying to use his
influence as a police officer to access the lease file. Redford got a phone call and stepped out of
the office to take it but when she returned, appellant was gone.
Appellant testified he was the sergeant at arms for the Steel Saints Law-Enforcement
Motorcycle Club. On February 10, 2010, he called 9-1-1 to report that Byrd had been attacked by
a leasing agent named Nicky at the apartment complex. When the police arrived, they talked to
Nicky, then interviewed appellant and Byrd. The police asked appellant if he was in a motorcycle
group and he informed them he was. After police left, appellant went to the manager=s office to
get a Fair Housing discrimination form. He denied identifying himself as a public servant and
denied referring to the district attorney.
Although appellant claims nothing he said rises to the level of being an official act or
imposing pretended official authority, we disagree. Appellant implied he was a police officer,
including talking about his lieutenant. He told Redford he was an undercover officer. He
B3B mentioned calling in VIN numbers on a car as an off-duty officer and referred to having called the
district attorney. These statements were made to induce Humphries to provide appellant with
information to which he was not entitled. See Boyett v. State, 368 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1963). To the extent he claims the witnesses= testimony is inconsistent with what he said,
the trial court was the fact finder in this case and was entitled to judge the credibility of the
witnesses and believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented by the parties. See Chambers
v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Because legally sufficient evidence
establishes appellant impersonated a police officer with intent to induce Humphries to submit to
his pretended official authority, the trial court did not err in denying his motion for a directed
verdict. We overrule appellant=s issue.
We affirm the trial court=s judgment.
/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 110846F.U05
B4B Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
Timothy Allen Tressler, Appellant On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas No. 05-11-00846-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 199-80803-10. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, The State of Texas, Appellee Justices Moseley and Lang participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered February 27, 2013.
B5B
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tressler, Timothy Allen v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tressler-timothy-allen-v-state-texapp-2013.