Fernandez v. State
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2
Tex. Crim. App.2016Background
- Fernandez was a Justice of the Peace in Val Verde County who had county travel funded with a county credit card for a June 2012 Orlando conference.
- The Orlando ticket was purchased nonrefundable; county policy favored nonrefundable tickets for cost savings.
- The ticket was cancelled due to illness, resulting in a $381.60 voucher in Fernandez’s name, expiring Feb 2013.
- Fernandez later had Mojica provide the voucher number to his son to enable personal travel, without correcting the prior county-imposed business impression.
- The county auditor later discovered the Phoenix trip funded by the voucher, with no county business documentation for that trip; Fernandez faced theft-by-deception charges.
- Fernandez was convicted, and the Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed; the issue is whether deception induced consent for use of the voucher.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to use the voucher was induced by deception | Fernandez claims no deception occurred at consent | State argues deception occurred and induced consent | Yes; deception induced consent to use the voucher for personal travel |
| Whether the deception preceded the consent in the August action | Fernandez asserts no deception before August consent | State asserts the initial consent created a continuing impression needing correction | Deception preceded and induced August consent to use the voucher |
| Whether the county’s assent to use the voucher was valid authorization | Mojica acted under supervisor’s instruction, not as county agent | Appellant controlled use by instructing disclosure to son; county consent existed | No valid county authorization; deception still supports the conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (sufficiency of evidence for deception-based theft)
- Daugherty v. State, 387 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (deception timing and elements in theft by deceit)
- Geick v. State, 349 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (interpretation of consent and deception elements)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency review standard for criminal evidence)