Nicole Hicks v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14091
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Nicole Hicks withdrew funds from a joint bank account she shared with her father‑in‑law; she also withdrew funds from a corporate account of T Bar Z, Inc. as wife of a supposed shareholder.
- The State charged Hicks with theft of money from an elderly individual for more than $20,000 but less than $100,000.
- Appellant argued she owned the funds or had a right to withdraw them due to joint‑account ownership and corporate/officer status.
- The jury convicted Hicks of theft; appellate questions include sufficiency of the evidence, admissibility of an extraneous‑offense/forgery document, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction, addressing each issue and rejecting Hicks’ challenges.
- The opinion discusses civil‑criminal law collisions in the context of corporate entity ownership vs. shareholder rights and joint account ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove theft | Hicks argued she could not steal her own money | State showed funds were deposited by others and Hicks misused them | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed |
| Admission of forgery evidence (extraneous offense) | Evidence was irrelevant to ownership and prejudicial | Evidence served to rebut ownership claim and was properly admitted | Non‑constitutional error not reversible; did not substantially affect verdict |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel was ineffective for not requesting specific jury instructions | Record lacked rationale for not requesting instructions; counsel not necessarily deficient | No ineffective assistance; record insufficient to prove deficiency or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenneco Inc. v. Enterprise Prods. Co., 925 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1999) (corporate assets are owned by the corporation, not shareholders; joint accounts do not vest ownership in co‑signors)
- Stauffer v. Henderson, 801 S.W.2d 858 (Tex. 1990) (joint account ownership vs. withdrawal rights; creation of joint account does not transfer title)
- Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1888) (ignorance of the law is no excuse; know the law applies to civil and criminal)
- Crain v. State, 153 S.W.155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1913) (know the law prohibition applies; intent to violate is punishable even if mistaken)