Leiroi Mickele Daniels v. State
14-15-00111-CR
Tex. App.Oct 28, 2015Background
- Daniels, a Houston criminal-defense attorney, received a 2000 Mercedes S500 from client Rodriguez as partial payment in Sept 2006; title was transferred to Daniels before the State filed an asset-forfeiture suit.
- The State filed a civil forfeiture action; Daniels posted/was co-surety on a replevy bond obligating payment of $23,000 if the vehicle was not produced at forfeiture hearing.
- The trial court released the vehicle to Daniels; Daniels sold the car in April 2008 (before civil forfeiture hearing) and agreed to honor the bond obligation.
- The forfeiture court later forfeited the bond; the State filed (then withdrew) an abstract of judgment in 2010 and re-abstracted in 2014 during criminal pretrial proceedings.
- The State indicted Daniels for third-degree felony misapplication of fiduciary property (Tex. Pen. Code §32.45), alleging Daniels (a co-surety) sold property in a way that risked loss to the 157th District Court.
- Daniels moved to quash/exception to the substance of the indictment under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 27.08(1), arguing (1) he owned the car, (2) his role as surety did not create a fiduciary duty over the car, and (3) the bond eliminated any substantial risk of loss; trial court denied the motions and Daniels appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Daniels) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictment is substantively defective because it does not appear an offense was committed (art. 27.08(1)) | Indictment tracks §32.45 elements and thus valid to charge an offense; factual disputes are for jury. | Even though statutory language is tracked, the allegations are legally impossible or misidentify elements so indictment fails on substance. | Remand/appeal court should review de novo; substantive defects may render indictment invalid (court urged to reverse). |
| Whether the 157th District Court was the "owner" or had a greater right of possession of the vehicle | Forfeiture suit gave the State/district court superior right of possession such that indictment properly alleges risk to the court. | Texas Penal Code and Art. 59.02 preserve owner/interest-holder rights during proceedings; Daniels had title and possession before suit, so court was not owner. | Court should treat ownership as a legal question; alleged ownership of the court is a legal impossibility and fatal to indictment. |
| Whether Daniels acted in a "fiduciary capacity" as a co-surety such that §32.45 applies | By signing as co-surety to the replevy bond, Daniels held the property subject to the bond and thus acted as fiduciary toward the court. | A surety’s obligation is to pay the bond amount if property is not produced; that does not create the special trust relationship §32.45 requires. | Court should decide as a matter of law whether surety status establishes fiduciary status; argument favors Daniels that suretyship alone is not the fiduciary relationship §32.45 contemplates. |
| Whether sale of the vehicle posed a "substantial risk of loss" to the alleged owner | Selling the vehicle before the hearing made loss of the property more likely than not, satisfying the statute’s substantial-risk element. | The replevy bond secured the value of the vehicle; with the bond in place there was no substantial risk of loss to the owner because the bond guaranteed payment. | Court should treat the effect of the bond on risk as a legal question; Daniels argues bond eliminated substantial risk as matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. State, 424 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (defining "fiduciary capacity" and the special trust relationship required under §32.45)
- Cook v. State, 902 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (distinguishing constitutional sufficiency to charge an offense from Article 27.08 substantive defects)
- Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (substantive defects under Article 27.08 include failure to allege an element)
- Casillas v. State, 733 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) ("substantial risk of loss" interpreted as "more likely than not")
- Martinez v. State, 753 S.W.2d 165 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1988) (acquittal where alleged owner did not legally exist; legal impossibility defeats misappropriation theory)