Liverman v. State
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 992
Tex. Crim. App.2015Background
- Roger and Aaron Liverman filed mechanic’s lien affidavits in the Denton County clerk’s office alleging unpaid labor/materials on Katheryn Payne’s home; Roger claimed $45,000, Aaron $12,000.
- The State indicted both under Texas Penal Code § 32.46(a)(1) for “securing the execution of documents by deception,” alleging they caused county clerk Cynthia Mitchell to sign/execute the affidavits.
- Trial convictions: both were convicted, fined, and placed on community supervision; appeals followed.
- The Second Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a clerk’s filing/recording is not the ‘‘signing or executing’’ contemplated by § 32.46(a)(1), relying on the statute’s parallel use of different verbs in subsection (a)(2).
- The State sought review, arguing that ‘‘execute’’ includes filing/recording (bringing a document into legal effect) and that the clerk’s acts put the liens into effect; appellants argued the claimant—not the clerk—executes a mechanic’s lien and that other statutes (e.g., § 32.49, § 32.49/32.46 interplay, and § 32.49’s misdemeanor scheme) address fraudulent liens.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals analyzed statutory text/structure and property-code mechanics, concluding filing perfects a mechanic’s lien but the filer, not the clerk, executes the affidavit; therefore appellants did not cause “another” to execute the documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether causing a county clerk to file/record a false mechanic’s lien constitutes "causing another to sign or execute" a document under § 32.46(a)(1) | "Execute" includes acts that put a document into final, legally enforceable form (i.e., filing/recording by the clerk), so filing/recording can be causing another to execute | A claimant files and thereby executes the affidavit; clerk is a passive recipient and clerk’s recording is not the execution that gives legal effect | No — filing/recording by the clerk does not amount to causing "another" to execute the document under § 32.46(a)(1) |
| Whether the presence of § 32.46(a)(2) and § 32.49 indicates (a)(1) was meant to criminalize filing false liens | (State) Subsections can overlap; (a)(2) targets fake-court filings so different verbs do not preclude overlap; § 32.49 is harmonizable | (Liverman) § 32.49 and Property Code provisions show legislature targeted fraudulent filings elsewhere; in pari materia favors narrower application | Court found (a)(2) and § 32.49 inconclusive for (a)(1)'s scope and harmonized statutes by treating (a)(1) as addressing creation of false liens and § 32.49 as addressing failure to release after notice |
| Proper definition of "execute" in § 32.46(a)(1) | Execute means to bring a document into final, legally enforceable form; may include filing/recording | Same definition urged, but applied to who performs the act (the filer, not the clerk) | Adopted definition: "to bring (a legal document) into its final, legally enforceable form"; filing effectuates execution but by the filer, not the clerk |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions alleging appellants caused clerk to execute documents | Clerk’s filing/recording equates to execution; appellants caused that to occur | The evidence did not show appellants caused the clerk to execute; claimant executes by filing | Evidence legally insufficient; convictions reversed and acquittals affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Global Enercom Mgmt., 323 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. 2010) (definition of "execute" for legal documents)
- Valdez v. Diamond Shamrock, 842 S.W.2d 273 (Tex. 1992) (mechanic’s lien perfection under the Property Code)
- Throckmorton v. Price, 28 Tex. 605 (1866) (rule on filing/recording effectiveness against subsequent purchasers)
- Chase v. State, 448 S.W.3d 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (statutory-construction principles; use of extratextual aids)