Ex parte Williams
| Decision Date | 28 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 68839,68839 |
| Citation | 622 S.W.2d 876 |
| Parties | Ex parte Andrew WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
This is a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding brought under Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.
Petitioner was convicted of credit card abuse under the second count of the indictment (See V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 32.31(b)(4)) and his punishment was assessed by the court at five (5) years' imprisonment.
Petitioner now alleges the indictment under which he was convicted is fundamentally defective because it fails to allege all the essential elements of the offense in that (1) it does not allege the "cardholder" or "owner," and (2) it fails to allege that the card was received with "knowledge" it had been stolen and with intent to use it without the effective consent of the "cardholder" or issuer.
V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 32.31(b)(4), reads:
"(4) he steals a credit card or, with knowledge that it has been stolen, receives a credit card with intent to use it, to sell it, or to transfer it to a person other than the issuer or the cardholder."
Omitting the formal parts, the two-count indictment alleged the appellant in Harris County "on or about JUNE 6, 1979, did then and there unlawfully and knowingly steal a (sic) Exxon credit card owned by LURAL D. WOFFORD, hereafter styled the Complainant, from the possession of the Complainant.
"It is further presented that in Harris County, Texas, ANDREW WILLIAMS, hereafter styled the Defendant, heretofore on or about JUNE 6, 1979, did then and there unlawfully receive a (sic) Exxon credit card owned by the Complainant, with the intent to use the card, knowing the card had been stolen from the Complainant."
At the time of trial the State with the consent of the court waived and abandoned the first count of the indictment. The petitioner thereafter entered a guilty plea before the court to the second count of the indictment and was convicted.
Elements of the offenses under V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 32.31(b)(4), are (1) a person (2) steals a credit card or, (3) knowing it has been stolen (4) receives the card with the intent to (5) use it, sell it, (6) transfer it to a person other than the issuer or cardholder. Branch's Tex.Anno. Penal Statutes 3d ed., Vol. 2, § 32.31, p. 563.
It is sufficient to allege an offense under V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 32.31(b) (4), if the indictment alleges (1) a person (2) knowing a credit card to have been stolen (3) receives it with intent to use it.
It was not essential to allege the "cardholder" or "owner" or to allege that the receipt of the credit card with intent to use "was without the effective consent of the cardholder or issuer." The indictment did allege knowledge that the card was stolen. Thus the second count of the indictment under which petitioner was convicted sufficiently alleged an offense under V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 32.31(b)(4). It was not necessary to allege, as the State did, that the credit card was "owned by the complainant " or in alleging knowledge to allege that it was stolen "from the complainant." The italicized words are surplusage and may be disregarded. 1 In Collins v. State, 500 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), this court wrote:
"When not descriptive of that which is legally essential to the validity of the indictment or information, unnecessary words may be rejected as surplusage." See also Burrell v. State, 526 S.W.2d 799, 802 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Cohen v. State, 479 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Malazzo v. State, (165 Tex.Cr.R. 441) 308 S.W.2d 29 (Tex.Cr.App.1957); Branch's Ann.P.C., 2d ed., Vol. 1, § 517, p. 497.
Petitioner relies upon Jones v. State, 611 S.W.2d 87 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), where it was held that the indictment was fatally defective because it failed to allege that the credit card was used without the effective consent of the cardholder. The conviction there was for obtaining property fraudulently by use of a credit card without the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joseph v State
...with the intent to, (5) use it, sell it, or (6) transfer it to a person other than the issuer or cardholder. See Ex parte Williams, 622 S.W.2d 876, 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). The evidence at the hearing showed appellant was in possession of a credit card issued to Lynda Wingate. Wingate te......
-
Tarpley v. Estelle
...or uses; (5) credit card; (6) with knowledge that it is not used with effective consent of cardholder." Ex parte Williams, 622 S.W.2d 876, 877 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (en banc); accord Harris v. State, 629 S.W.2d 805, 806 (Tex.App.1982); Ex parte Dawson, 578 S.W.2d 749, 750 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ex ......
-
Curry v. State
...markings by bank on tenor of check alleged in forgery indictment were surplusage and need not be proved); Ex parte Williams, 622 S.W.2d 876, 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (allegations in credit card abuse indictment that card was "owned by complainant" and stolen "from complainant" were surplu......
-
Hayden v. State, s. 13-91-090-C
...ownership is not an element of the crime of credit card abuse. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.31(b)(1)(A)(Vernon 1989); Ex Parte Williams, 622 S.W.2d 876, 877 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). In prosecuting this offense, the State must allege lack of consent of the cardholder whose name appears on the face ......