Jones, Christina Carletta
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 656
Tex. Crim. App.2013Background
- Jones was charged in two indictments with fraudulent use or possession of identifying information under Tex. Penal Code § 32.51(b).
- She claimed §32.51 and §38.02(b) were in pari materia, requiring charges under the more lenient §38.02(b).
- The trial court denied her plea to the jurisdiction; she pled nolo contendere with a caveat excluding intent to defraud or harm.
- After a bench trial, the court deferred adjudication for two years.
- The court of appeals rejected the pari materia argument and the sufficiency challenge; this Court granted discretionary review to address pari materia and sufficiency standard issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are §§ 32.51(b) and 38.02 in pari materia? | Jones | State | Not in pari materia; the statutes have different subjects and purposes. |
| What sufficiency standard applies to the nolo contendere context? | Jones | State | Improperly granted review; standard clarified as applicable to the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (examina sufficiency in no-contest contexts and governs evidentiary standards)
- Azeez v. State, 248 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (parity of general vs. specific statutes; statutory construction)
- Alejos v. State, 555 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (in pari materia interpretation guideposts)
- Ex parte Smith, 185 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (special vs. general provisions—controls when irreconcilable)
- Mills v. State, 722 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (statutory construction principles for pari materia)