Case No. PD-0962-15
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
NO. 09-13-00536-CR
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT BEAUMONT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
v.
JESSICA SEKERKA SIEGEL
Arising from:
Cause No. 12-03-02754-CR
IN THE 221ST DISTRICT COURT,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
BRETT W. LIGON
District Attorney
Montgomery County, Texas
TIANA JEAN SANFORD
Assistant District Attorney
JASON LARMAN
Assistant District Attorney
Montgomery County, Texas
August 25, 2015
T.B.C. No. 24072468
207 W. Phillips, Second Floor
Conroe, Texas 77301
936-539-7800
jason.larman@mctx.org
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, the State hereby lists all parties to the trial
court’s judgment:
District Attorney: BRETT W. LIGON
District Attorney
Montgomery County, Texas
207 W. Phillips, Second Floor
Conroe, Texas 77301
Counsel for the State in the trial court: TIANA JEAN SANFORD
JASON LARMAN
Assistant District Attorneys
Montgomery County, Texas
207 W. Phillips, Second Floor
Conroe, Texas 77301
Counsel for the State in the appellate court: JASON LARMAN
Assistant District Attorney
Montgomery County, Texas
207 W. Phillips, Second Floor
Conroe, Texas 77301
Counsel for the appellant in the trial court: JARROD WALKER
301 N. Thompson
Conroe, Texas 77301
Counsel for the appellant in the appellate court: RICHARD MARTIN P. CANLAS
300 West Davis, Suite 560
Conroe, Texas 77301
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ............................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iii
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .................................................1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE...................................................................................1
GROUND FOR REVIEW .........................................................................................2
STATEMENT OF FACTS .........................................................................................2
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................3
The court of appeals adopted a definition of “makes” that is far
too narrow. ...........................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ................................................................................6
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9.4.............................................7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................................7
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Constructors Unlimited Inc. v. State, 717 S.W.2d 169
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, pet. ref’d) .................................................4
Ex parte Graves, 436 S.W.3d 395 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d)........4, 5
Pokladnik v. State, 876 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, no pet.) ...................4
Statutes
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.10 (West Supp. 2014).....................................................3
iii
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
The State believes oral argument is necessary because this case presents an
undecided issue of important Texas law.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The appellant was charged by two separate indictments with the offense of
tampering with a governmental record related to conduct occurring on March 9,
2012. The cases were tried in a single proceeding; the appellant entered a plea of
not guilty, but the jury found her guilty. The jury assessed her punishment at two
years confinement in a state jail facility, but recommended that the sentence be
suspended and that the appellant be placed on community supervision. The trial
court sentenced the appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdict, suspended the
sentence, and placed the appellant on community supervision for a period of four
years.
The Ninth Court of Appeals found that the evidence was legally insufficient,
reversed the appellant’s conviction, and rendered a judgment of acquittal. See
Siegel v. State, No. 09-13-00536-CR, 2015 WL 3897860, at *3 (Tex. App.—
Beaumont June 24, 2015, no. pet. h.).
1
GROUND FOR REVIEW
The court of appeals erred in concluding that the evidence was
insufficient to support the appellant’s conviction because it adopted
too narrow of a meaning for the term “makes,” as used in Texas Penal
Code § 37.10(a)(1).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On December 19, 2011, the appellant filed an application to appear on the
2012 Republican Party primary ballot as a candidate for the office of judge of the
418th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas (R.R. 8: State’s ex. 14). On that
application, the appellant asserted that she had resided continuously in
Montgomery County for one year prior to that date (R.R. 8: State’s ex. 14). 1 That
application was refused because it failed to satisfy the requirement that she live
continuously in Montgomery County for two years before the general election in
November of 2012. Due to redistricting efforts, the deadline for filing an
application was subsequently extended to March 9, 2012.
On March 9, 2012, the appellant returned to the Montgomery County
Republican Party Headquarters and again filed an application to appear on the
1
The appellant was charged by a separate indictment with the offense of
tampering with a governmental record for allegedly false statements related to her
period of residency contained in the December 19th application, and she was tried
in a single proceeding for both indictments. The jury found her not guilty of the
offense alleged to have occurred on or about December 19, 2011.
2
primary ballot. This application indicated that the appellant had lived in
Montgomery County for the preceding one year and five months (R.R. 8: State’s
ex. 15). Because the appellant did not live or work in Montgomery County during
that period of time, and lived in Harris County until after she leased an apartment
in Montgomery County beginning February 5, 2012, that assertion was false (R.R.
4: 18-25).
ARGUMENT
THE COURT OF APPEALS ADOPTED A DEFINITION OF “MAKES” THAT IS FAR TOO
NARROW.
As charged in the present indictment, a person commits the offense of
tampering with a governmental record if, with the intent to harm or defraud
another, the person knowingly makes a false entry in a governmental record. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.10 (West Supp. 2014).
The court of appeals held that the evidence was insufficient because, at the
moment the appellant wrote false information on the application, it was not a
governmental record. In reaching its conclusion, the court of appeals focused
exclusively on the status of the document containing the false statement at the
moment the false statement was written. Certainly, by writing a false statement on
a governmental record, a person “makes a false entry in a governmental record.”
But that does not mean the person who makes a false statement in an application
and files that application with government does not also make a false entry in a
3
governmental record. In even the most simplistic of terms, the actor’s conduct in
the latter scenario has created a false entry in a governmental record that did not
previously exist.
Admittedly, the court of appeals relied on several other opinions from courts
of appeals that reached similar conclusions and found the evidence to be
insufficient to support a conviction under section 37.10(a)(1) when the false
statement is written on an application or other document before it is received by
government. See Ex parte Graves, 436 S.W.3d 395, 398 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
2014, pet. ref’d); Pokladnik v. State, 876 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Tex. App.—Dallas
1994, no pet.); Constructors Unlimited Inc. v. State, 717 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, pet. ref’d).
Assuming that the reasoning of the cases relied on by the court of appeals is
correct, those cases are distinguishable from the instant case. In Pokladnik, the
documents were never filed with any governmental agency, and thus, no false entry
ever appeared in a governmental record. See Pokladnik, 876 S.W.2d at 527 (“In
short, no government entity ever put its hands on these documents”). In
Constructors Unlimited, the defendant, who was the president of a general
contracting company, submitted an invoice containing a false statement regarding
whether the subcontractors had been paid in full. Constructors Unlimited Inc., 717
S.W.2d at 172. The invoice itself was ultimately submitted to government, but was
4
found not to be a governmental record at the time of the false entry. Id. There was
no evidence that it ever resulted in any other false entries in a governmental record.
Id. at 174. Similarly, in Graves, the State conceded that the records were not a
governmental record at the time the false entries were made and presented no
evidence that the false information from the form resulted in the creation of a false
entry in any governmental record. See Graves, 436 S.W.3d at 398.
But the instant case is different. The appellant’s conduct resulted in a false
entry in a governmental record beyond the act of writing the false statement on the
application. The application in this case was filed with the office of the Republican
Party and used to determine the appellant’s eligibility, and as a result, the appellant
was falsely listed as an eligible candidate on the Republican Party primary ballot
(R.R. 4: 53). The definition of a governmental record includes both election
records and records required by law to be kept for information of government. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.01 (West Supp. 2014). The appellant’s conduct caused
to exist a false statement in a governmental record that would not have otherwise
existed. Therefore, the appellant “made a false entry in a governmental record.” By
artificially restricting the meaning of “makes” to apply only to the direct action by
a person who has physical possession of a governmental record, the court of
appeals unnecessarily excluded conduct that results deliberately but indirectly in
the creation of a false entry in a governmental record. Accordingly, this Court
5
should grant the State’s petition for discretionary review and reverse the opinion
issued by the court of appeals.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
It is respectfully submitted that the judgment of the Ninth Court of Appeals
is in error and that this Court should exercise its powers of discretionary review to
correct that error.
BRETT W. LIGON
District Attorney
Montgomery County, Texas
/s/Jason Larman
JASON LARMAN
T.B.C. No. 24072468
Assistant District Attorney
Montgomery County, Texas
207 W. Phillips, Second Floor
Conroe, Texas 77301
936-539-7800
936-788-8395 (FAX)
jason.larman@mctx.org
6
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9.4
I hereby certify that this document complies with the requirements of Tex. R.
App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(D) because there are 993 words in this document, excluding the
portions of the document excepted from the word count under Rule 9.4(i)(1), as
calculated by the Microsoft Word computer program used to prepare it.
/s/Jason Larman
JASON LARMAN
Assistant District Attorney
Montgomery County, Texas
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was
mailed to counsel for the appellant on the date of the submission of the original to
the Clerk of this Court.
/s/Jason Larman
JASON LARMAN
Assistant District Attorney
Montgomery County, Texas
7
Envelope Details
Print this page
Case # PD-0962-15
Case Information
Location Court Of Criminal Appeals
Date Filed 08/20/2015 03:37:53 PM
Case Number PD-0962-15
Case Description
Assigned to Judge
Attorney Jason Larman
Firm Name Montgomery County District Attorney's Office
Filed By Jason Larman
Filer Type Not Applicable
Fees
Convenience Fee $0.00
Total Court Case Fees $0.00
Total Court Filing Fees $0.00
Total Court Service Fees $0.00
Total Filing & Service Fees $0.00
Total Service Tax Fees $0.00
Total Provider Service Fees $0.00
Total Provider Tax Fees $0.00
Grand Total $0.00
Payment
Account Name Exempt filings
Transaction Amount $0.00
Transaction Response
Transaction ID
Order #
Petition for Discretionary Review
Filing Type EFileAndServe
Filing Code Petition for Discretionary Review
Filing Description State's PDR in State v. Siegel
Reference Number
Comments
Status Rejected
Fees
Court Fee $0.00
Service Fee $0.00
Rejection Information
Rejection Time Rejection Comment
Reason
08/25/2015 The petition for discretionary review does not contain a copy of the court of appeals
Other 03:48:08 opinion [Rule 68.4(j)]. You have ten days to tender a corrected petition for
https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=b1caa9ba-4632-42e2-8929-b8d262e30db2[8/25/2015 3:51:00 PM]
Envelope Details
PM discretionary review.
Documents
Lead Document siegeljessica.pdr.pdf [Original]
eService Details
Name/Email Firm Service Type Status Served Date/Time Opened
Richard Martin P. Canlas 08/20/2015
EServe Sent Yes
r.canlas.esquire@gmail.com 03:56:01 PM
State Prosecuting Attorney 08/20/2015
EServe Sent Yes
information@spa.texas.gov 04:10:17 PM
https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=b1caa9ba-4632-42e2-8929-b8d262e30db2[8/25/2015 3:51:00 PM]