Arellano v. State
| Decision Date | 08 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | NUMBER 13-11-00477-CR |
| Parties | ADELAIDA REYNA ARELLANO, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On appeal from the 206th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINIONBefore Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Appellant, Adelaida Reyna Arellano, appeals her conviction for forgery by making a check, a state-jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.21(a)(1)(A), (b), (d) (West 2011). Following a bench trial, appellant was found guilty and sentenced to 180 days of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—State Jail Division. The trialcourt suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of two years. The trial court ordered appellant to pay $100.00 in restitution and $333.00 in court costs. By two issues on appeal, appellant argues the evidence is "legally insufficient" to show: (1) appellant altered the check; and (2) appellant intended to defraud another. We affirm.
On July 20, 2010, the complainant, Evangelina Guerrero, gave appellant a check in the amount of $15.00, payable to appellant, to reimburse her for purchasing tamales and a luncheon plate. Appellant and Guerrero worked in the same office.
Later, while reviewing their bank statement, Guerrero's husband noticed that a check had apparently been written to appellant for the incorrect amount of $115.00. Guerrero looked at her duplicate check and realized someone must have altered the original check. The duplicate check showed that "15.00" was the sum listed in the "item amount" box, followed by the written words "Fifteen and no/cents."
Guerrero called appellant and asked what amount the check was cashed for. Appellant answered, "[w]hatever you made it out for." Appellant told Guerrero she gave the check to her husband and that he deposited it with his own checks in Weslaco. Guerrero informed appellant that she had written the check for $15.00, but that it was cashed for $115.00, and that she still had her duplicate check. Appellant "went quiet," and then told Guerrero that she would go to the bank in the morning and "take care of it." Appellant never told Guerrero that she lost the check or that anything happened to it after Guerrero gave it to her.
The next day, Guerrero took her duplicate check to First National Bank in McAllen, Texas, and stated she wrote the check for $15.00, but that it was cashed for $115.00. A bank employee looked up Guerrero's and appellant's bank accounts, and discovered that the deposit slip was made out for $115.00, and that the deposit was made in McAllen, not in Weslaco. The bank manager, Francisco Torres, advised Guerrero that she needed to file a police report. Guerrero went to the police department in McAllen and provided a statement. Guerrero was advised to inform her employer about the incident and to meet with Torres at the bank to fill out a fraud report.
The following Monday, appellant brought Guerrero the sum of $100.00 in cash. Appellant placed the money on Guerrero's desk and stated it was merely a "bank error."
On August 30, 2010, appellant was arrested for forgery. Appellant pleaded "not guilty" and waived her right to a jury trial. During the bench trial, Guerrero testified she recognized her signature on the check. She stated she made the check out for the sum of $15.00, but that it was altered to read $115.00. Guerrero testified the number "1" had been inserted in front of the number "15," and the word "one" had been written in front of the amount for "fifteen" dollars. Guerrero testified these alterations were not in her handwriting. Guerrero further testified she had previously written many checks in an amount over one-hundred dollars and that she customarily wrote out the words "one hundred." Guerrero stated she recognized appellant's signature on the endorsement.
Ginno Betancourt, the teller at First National Bank who processed the forged check, testified the deposit slip belonged to appellant. The deposit slip was dated July 20, 2010. No cash was given to appellant. Betancourt testified he only looks atcustomers in the drive-through to identify the customer if the customer is receiving cash; consequently, he never saw appellant or the vehicle she was driving. The record shows Betancourt and appellant had no prior relationship with one another.
Detective Rene Hernandez, with the McAllen Police Department, testified he reviewed a copy of the altered check, the duplicate carbon copy of the check, and the deposit slip. He noticed the account number underneath appellant's endorsement on the back of the forged check was written with a unique pen stroke. "[T]he numbers were written in a—in a manner that whoever wrote this number left a—I guess you could say a little motion to the right from the bottom of the number going in an upward to the right motion." He also noticed the number "1" on the deposit slip was written in the same manner. He concluded the same person filled out the deposit slip and endorsed the back of the check.
Detective Hernandez testified appellant visited the McAllen Police Department to discuss the case with him. She had a worried look on her face when questioned about the altered check. Appellant told Detective Hernandez that she had been having an affair and that it was this person who altered the check. The two of them allegedly met at the K-Mart parking lot next to the bank and started to argue. The man asked if she wanted him to deposit the check. Appellant informed Detective Hernandez that she had already endorsed the check, written out her name, and written her account number on the back of the check. Detective Hernandez asked if she had filled out the deposit slip. Appellant said no. Rather, the man took the check and deposit slip away from her and filled out the deposit slip. Appellant let him take the check and make the deposit. Theythen went their separate ways. Appellant told Detective Hernandez that she later received a phone call from the man and that he told her, "You know what, don't [ . . . ] with me," and then hung up. A few days later appellant received a phone call from Guerrero advising her of the amount of money that was actually deposited.
Detective Hernandez testified he gave appellant several opportunities to provide him with information about the man so he could confirm her story. He asked her to provide a name, address, and phone number. Appellant indicated she did not want to get the man involved. She finally told him that his name is "Robert Crocker" and that Crocker was a truck driver from the Austin area. She did not want to give Detective Hernandez his phone number or any other information so Detective Hernandez could verify his identity. Based on the limited amount of information appellant gave him, Detective Hernandez was only able to run a local check. He could not find anyone in the area with the name Robert Crocker.
Detective Hernandez testified he contacted the bank to find out if there was video surveillance of the transaction. The bank provided him with a video, but he could not determine whether the time on the video matched the time stamped on the check. The video was of such poor quality that the two individuals inside the vehicle were not visible. He could not confirm the make or model of the vehicle. Detective Hernandez guessed that the vehicle was a Chrysler 300. Appellant told Detective Hernandez that Crocker drove a white Camry and that she drove a gray Ford Escape.
Appellant testified she received a check from Guerrero in the amount of $15.00 for food she had purchased. Appellant denied she altered the face of the check by writing a"1" in front of the "15." She further testified she would not risk her career and her livelihood for $100.00.
Appellant testified she first met Crocker about a year before on a flight to Austin. She described him as being of "average" height "[f]ive four, five six, something like that." Crocker asked for her business card, and she gave it to him. She received a phone call from Crocker about two weeks later. According to appellant, her affair lasted about a year. She met with him three or four different times, and they had intimate relations. Crocker gave her a small pendant and a computer. She did not have his address and did not know where he lived. She would wait for him to call her.
Appellant testified that prior to the day the check was deposited, she told Crocker that she did not want to see him anymore. A few days before the incident occurred, Crocker allegedly called appellant and said "he was going to be down" and asked her to meet with him. Appellant claimed she decided to meet with him to give him back his things. She left the office ten or fifteen minutes early on Wednesday and waited for him at the K-Mart parking lot. While she was waiting, she pulled out the check, took out her checkbook, and tore out a deposit slip. Crocker arrived at that point and entered her vehicle on the passenger side. Appellant claimed that Crocker attempted to place his hand on her leg multiple times, she pushed him away, he cursed at her, and they got into an argument. He then grabbed the check and deposit slip and said, "What is this?" She told him that she was going to the bank and asked him to give the check and deposit slip back to her.
Appellant testified that they continued to argue. She told Crocker to get out of thetruck. Crocker exited the vehicle, stood at the door, and said, "Don't mess with me." Crocker opened the back door, entered the back of the vehicle, and pulled out "six, seven, or eight" intimate pictures of the two of them together. She did not know the pictures existed, and she was shocked. Appellant attempted to take the pictures away from Crocker, but he grabbed her arm and refused to give her the pictures. She told him to get out of the truck, and he responded, "I...
To continue reading
Request your trial