Robert Johnson v. Ingram Readymix, Inc. and Richard White--Appeal from 424th District Court of Llano County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 3rd District Court of Appeals » 2010 » Robert Johnson v. Ingram Readymix, Inc. and Richard White--Appeal from 424th District Court of Llano County

State: Texas

Court: Criminal Court of Appeals

Docket No: 03-09-00568-CV

Case Date: 12/23/2010

Plaintiff: Brian E. Hendershot

Defendant: Heather L. Hendershot--Appeal from 324th District Court of Tarrant County

Preview:Hector Carillos Martinez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-05-00864-CR Hector Carillos MARTINEZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2004-CR-3370A Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding (1)

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice Catherine Stone, Justice Sarah B. Duncan, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 27, 2006 AFFIRMED Hector Martinez appeals the judgment convicting him of and sentencing him for theft and unauthorized use of a vehicle. We affirm the trial court's judgment. On February 21, 2003, National Car Rental rented a van to Arturo Martinez. Although the van was rented to Arturo, the rental contract was signed by his brother, appellant Hector Martinez. The rental agreement, which had a minimum rental period of five days and a maximum period of twenty-eight days, required that the van be returned to National in San Antonio by February 28, 2003. Arturo, Hector, and Hector's wife and son took the van to Wisconsin, where they stayed in a home owned by Arturo's wife, Suesanna Martinez. Because Arturo was diabetic and very ill, could not see well, and was unable to drive, Hector and his wife drove the van while they were in Wisconsin. Although Hector and Arturo told Suesanna in late February or early March 2003 they had to leave for San Antonio so they could return the van, the van was not returned to National. Instead, after they returned to San Antonio, Hector and Arturo were seen driving the van. Hector's neighbor testified she first saw the van parked in the driveway at Hector's home around May 2003 and that Hector and his son used the van all the time. In July or August 2003, Arturo was placed in a nursing home. Sometime thereafter, Suesanna received correspondence from National demanding payment for the van. After first calling National and the police, Suesanna called Hector and
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/19836.html[8/20/2013 8:01:38 PM]

asked him if he still had the van. Hector told her he was keeping it and was not going to turn it in. After Arturo died on September 3, 2003, his daughter Stephanie traveled to San Antonio from Wisconsin. Concerned because her mother was getting bills and notices about the van, she and her sister went to Hector's home and confirmed the van was there. She then called and gave National's manager Hector's address. On November 3, 2003, National's manager went to Hector's home, saw the van, and called the police. When the police arrived, Hector's wife gave her neighbor a set of keys to hold. When the neighbor went outside and saw the police around the van, she gave the police the keys. The vehicle identification number of the van parked in front of Hector's house matched that of the van rented from National in February; however, the license plate had been replaced with paper dealer tags, later determined to be counterfeit. The van's bench seats had been removed and placed on the ground next to the driveway under a blanket. Plywood had been laid on the floor of the van, the walls were scratched, and the van appeared to have been used to carry tools and construction equipment. The key was a factory key and had a National tag on it. Accordingly, the van was returned to National. Hector was arrested and charged with theft and unauthorized use of a vehicle. After he was found guilty, he was sentenced to two concurrent terms of two years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice State Jail Division. He now appeals, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to establish either that he intended to deprive National of the van, as required for a theft conviction, or that he knew he did not have consent to use the vehicle, as required for an unauthorized use conviction. We disagree. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Hector signed the rental agreement stating the rental period and thus knew the van was rented and when it had to be returned; but, after being told to return it, he continued to use it. This evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's findings that Hector Martinez knew he did not have consent of the owner to use the van through November 3, 2003 and intended to deprive the lawful owner of the van. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed.2d 560 (1979); Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 414-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we hold the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the verdict and affirm the trial court's judgment. Sarah B. Duncan , Justice Do not publish 1. Sitting by assignment.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/19836.html[8/20/2013 8:01:38 PM]

Download 19836.pdf