Fernandez, James, PD-0123-15

Appellant James Fernandez was Justice of the Peace in Val Verde County; county purchased nonrefundable, nontransferable Southwest Airlines tickets for a county conference in Orlando in February 2012.
The county (through Appellant’s chief deputy) purchased the tickets on a county card with county approval for county business.
Appellant and a fellow judge cancelled the conference; the registration was refunded but the airline issued a credit (usable only by Appellant) that would expire if unused. The county auditor was informed of the cancellation and credit.
In August 2012 Appellant used the airline credit to book and take a personal trip to Phoenix, paying the fare difference personally; he did not seek further county approval or notify the county before or after using the credit.
County officials discovered use of the credit during budget-review inquiries, sought restitution, and referred the matter to prosecutors; Appellant was indicted for theft by deception, convicted, sentenced to 90 days’ confinement (suspended) and 90 days’ community supervision, and fined restitution.
Appellant appealed; the Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed. Appellant petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals, which granted review on the single question whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating lack of consent as proof of deception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether theft-by-deception requires proof that consent was induced by deception rather than simply absent	The State contends the evidence shows Fernandez created a false impression that the ticket was for county business, failed to correct it, and therefore deceived the county when he later used the credit for personal travel	Fernandez argues the county never consented to the August use, so there was no consent to induce; deception must precede or accompany consent and be a substantial factor inducing it	Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence of deception; Appellant asks CCA to reverse, arguing law requires inducement of consent and no such inducement occurred

Daugherty v. State, 387 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discusses that deception-induced consent requires victim’s reliance as a substantial factor)
Ehrhardt v. State, 334 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (defines "induce"/causation in consent context)
Geick v. State, 349 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (deception is an essential element when alleged in indictment)
Merryman v. State, 391 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (distinguishes lawful acquisitive conduct from theft by intent to acquire without effective consent at time of deprivation)