Sanjoseph Tan v. State
01-15-00511-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 30, 2015Background
- Appellant Sanjoseph Tan was indicted and convicted under Tex. Penal Code § 32.51 for fraudulent use/possession of identifying information; sentenced to one year in state jail and appealed.
- Tan posed as Songfan Jin to purchase and finance a 2013 Hyundai Sonata, using two IDs bearing Jin’s data but Tan’s photo.
- The bank investigated, discovered identity theft, the dealership bought back the loan, repossessed and resold the car at a substantial loss (~$17,000).
- Jin (a New York resident) never authorized use of his identity, suffered credit damage and had to retain counsel to clear collection notices.
- At arrest Tan had IDs in his name and also identified himself as the person pictured on the forged Jin identification; fingerprints established his true identity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial constitutional challenge to § 32.51 (First, Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendments) | § 32.51 is a valid statute aimed at preventing identity theft and does not implicate or overreach protected speech; issue not preserved at trial | § 32.51 is facially overbroad and chills protected speech/petitioning rights | Court should overrule: defendant failed to preserve the constitutional challenge; even if preserved, § 32.51 does not target speech or substantially implicate protected conduct (State relies on recent First Dist. precedent) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to defraud or harm | Circumstantial evidence (loan application in Jin’s name, forged IDs, trade-in transaction, economic loss to dealer, credit damage to Jin) proves Tan intended to defraud/harm | Evidence shows mere possession of Jin’s identifying information, not use with intent to defraud | Court should affirm: evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is legally sufficient to show intent to defraud or harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard eliminating independent factual-sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (facial constitutional challenges must be preserved at trial)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Rowshan v. State, 445 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (circumstantial evidence can establish intent to defraud)
- Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (preservation rules for constitutional challenges; as-applied challenges must be presented at trial)