Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53543,53543 |
| Parties | Shirley JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appellant was convicted of theft over $200.00. V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 31.03(d)(4)(A). Her punishment, assessed at two years' imprisonment, was probated.
The jurisdiction of the trial court to adjudicate this cause is challenged on appeal.
Appellant was charged with theft because she applied to the Texas Department of Public Welfare under Art. 695c, V.A.C.S., for "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" and, on three separate occasions, fraudulently represented that she was not employed. As a result of this misrepresentation, she received overpayments from the Department of Public Welfare totaling $703.00.
Appellant contends that she should have been prosecuted under the Public Welfare Act, Art. 695c, supra, Sec. 34 of which provided in part: 1
"Whoever obtains, or attempts to obtain, or aids or abets any person to obtain, by means of a wilfully false statement or representation or by impersonation, or by other fraudulent means:
(1) Assistance, services or treatment to which he is not entitled;
(2) Assistance, services, or treatment greater than that to which he is justly entitled . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined any sum not more than One Hundred Dollars ($100) or be imprisoned for not less than six (6) months, nor more than two (2) years, or be both so fined and imprisoned."
Appellant urges that this specific enactment governs over the general theft statute and that, because the special statute creates a misdemeanor, not a felony, it was improper to charge her in the district court.
Initially, we observe that appellant's conduct was in violation of both statutes. Section 34 of Art. 695c, supra, however, is much more specific than the general theft statute in three particulars: (1) the victim (Department of Public Welfare), (2) the property (assistance, etc.), and (3) the means of theft (fraudulent means, etc.).
In Cuellar v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 521 S.W.2d 277, at 279, we stated:
See also Sarratt v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 543 S.W.2d 391; Ex parte Harrell, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 169; Hines v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 515 S.W.2d 670.
We conclude, after examination of Sec. 34 of Art. 695c, supra, "that the legislature intended it to be complete within itself." Cuellar v. State, supra. Our conclusion is supported by the specific nature of the civil statute's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McElroy v. State
...construction trust funds received in connection with the particular project on which those persons worked. See Jones v. State, 552 S.W.2d 836 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). I would overrule this Finally, appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of an extr......
-
Chalin v. State
...Tawfik v. State, 643 S.W.2d 127 (1982); Williams v. State, 641 S.W.2d 236 (1982; rehearing denied November 24, 1982); Jones v. State, 552 S.W.2d 836 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). An analogous situation exists within the Controlled Substances Act, in that different controlled substances are deemed to c......
-
Cheney v. State
...have jurisdiction to try the case." Cheney v. State, No. 07-83-0029-CR (Tex.App. Amarillo, September 19, 1984), citing Jones v. State, 552 S.W.2d 836 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to determine whether the appeals court erred in holding that appe......
-
Brown v. State
...be, would constitute the felony or make the other a party to its commission."3 For a holding similar to appellant's theory, see Jones v. State, 552 S.W.2d 836, where we held it was improper to prosecute under V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 31.03(d)(4)(A) (Theft over $200) when the same actions w......