KEVIN JOCQUAIN BELL v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2012)

OPINION

Opinion By Justice Richter

The trial court found appellant guilty of engaging in organized criminal activity and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment and restitution of $965.23.   In a single issue on appeal, appellant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.   Concluding appellant's argument is without merit, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

We review the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard set out in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).  Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854, 859 (Tex.Crim.App.2011).   We examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.   Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319;  Adames, 353 S.W.3d at 860.   This standard recognizes “the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.”  Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319;  see also Adames,353 S.W.3d at 860.

To establish that appellant was guilty of engaging in organized criminal activity as charged in the indictment, the state was required to prove that appellant committed forgery with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 71.02(a)(1) (West Supp.2011);  Ford v. State, 282 S.W.3d 256, 263 (Tex.App.—Austin 2009, no pet.);   see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21 (West 2011) (forgery).   A “combination” requires three or more people who collaborate in carrying on criminal activities.  Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 71.01(a) (West 2011).   The State must prove that the defendant intended to establish, maintain, participate in, or participate in the profits of a combination and that the members of the combination intended to work together in a continuing course of criminal activity.  Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61, 63 (Tex.Crim.App.2002);  Dowdle v. State, 11 S.W.3d 233, 236 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).   Participants in the combination need not know each other's identity, and membership in the combination may change.  Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 71.01(a)(1)-(2).

Appellant does not challenge the evidence to support the predicate offense—forgery.   Instead, he claims the evidence is insufficient to establish he intended to participate in a combination.   The record reflects that on June 3, 2010, appellant appeared at the Community Bank in Rockwall and cashed a check for $965.23.   The check was made out to appellant, and his driver's license number and date of birth appeared above the payor line.   The check purported to be drawn on the account of Schindler Development Systems, a company with which appellant had no relationship or affiliation.   When cashing the check, appellant presented his driver's license, which listed a Dallas residence address for identification.   The check was subsequently discovered to be a forgery.

Within twenty-one minutes, four other individuals also cashed similarly forged checks drawn on the Schindler account.   All of these checks were in the “$900 range.”   Like appellant, the individuals cashing these checks used a driver's license for identification purposes.

Detective Steve Tigert testified about his investigation of the forgeries.   He testified that photographs from the bank's camera showed appellant and the other four individuals in the same area of the bank, doing the same thing.   He also testified about the relatively short time frame in which each of the five forged checks was presented, all on the same day.   According to Detective Tigert, after arrest, two of the individuals involved in the forgeries identified a man known as “Fast Black,” who would bring groups of people to a bank for purposes of passing a forged check.   In return, they would get approximately $100 for each check they passed.   Detective Tigert said that none of the five individuals cashing the forged checks had any connection to Rockwall.

Detective Tigert further testified that during his investigation, and in speaking with other investigators who were seeing the same types of checks, he learned that the individuals involved in the forgeries were typically recruited because they had good identification.   The recruiters would take the identification and use that information to print a check.   Then, the recruiters would take two or three carloads of people to different cities and start “hitting banks.”   Detective Tigert stated that he charged appellant with organized criminal activity because he considered participation in the forgery ring to be participation in a combination or in the profits of a combination.

Appellant insists the evidence is insufficient to establish his intent to participate in the combination because there is no evidence that he worked with, knew, or was aware of any of the other individuals who cashed forged checks in the bank that day.   He also complains that there is no evidence he traveled with or was brought to the Community Bank by anyone.   Although appellant's representations concerning the state of the evidence are correct, his reliance on the necessity of such evidence is misplaced.

In essence, appellant's complaint is that there is no direct evidence of his intent.   Direct evidence, however, is not required.   See Hart, 89 S.W.3d at 64.   Rather, intent may be established by circumstantial evidence.   See Ledet v. State, 177 S.W.3d 213, 219 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd).   In fact, intent may be inferred from any facts which tend to prove its existence, including the acts, words, and conduct of the accused, and the method of committing the crime.   A jury may also infer knowledge from such evidence.   See Manrique v. State, 994 S.W.2d 640, 649 (Tex.Crim.App.1999).   In the present case, Detective Tigert's testimony concerning the investigation of the forgery ring and its method of operation, coupled with the evidence showing a close proximity in time between appellant's presentation of the forged check to four other similar forgeries on the same account, on the same day, at the same bank was sufficient to support a reasonable inference that appellant intended to participate in a combination when he cashed the forged check.   Appellant's sole issue is overruled.   The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

101649F.U05 S

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at DallasJUDGMENT

KEVIN JOCQUAIN BELL, Appellant

No. 05–10–01649–CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, AppelleeAppeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court of Rockwall County, Texas.  (Tr.Ct.No.2–10–383).

Opinion delivered by Justice Richter, Justices O'Neill and Frances participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered April 5, 2012.

/Martin Richter/

MARTIN RICHTER

JUSTICE

MARTIN RICHTER JUSTICE