United States v. Angela Presley
540 F. App'x 362
5th Cir.2013Background
- Angela Presley convicted by jury of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), access device fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2)), and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A); sentenced to 30 months imprisonment plus 3 years supervised release.
- Aggravated identity theft and wire fraud arose from Presley’s alleged unauthorized online application for a Capital One credit card in the name of her employer, Pam Powers.
- Access device fraud arose from Presley’s use of the Capital One card and Powers’s Chase Platinum Visa and Providian Visa to pay for personal expenses.
- It was undisputed Presley had authority to use the Chase and Providian cards for Powers’s brokerage-related expenses; Powers testified she never authorized the Capital One application nor the personal charges.
- Evidence supporting the Government included that statements for the Capital One and Providian cards were mailed to Presley’s home address; the case turned on witness credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions | Presley: conflicting testimony shows insufficient proof she lacked authority or exceeded it | Government: jurors could credit Powers and infer fraud/identity theft and unauthorized use | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Aggravated identity theft based on Capital One application | Presley: she was authorized to apply/use the account | Government: application was unauthorized and used Powers’s identity | Affirmed |
| Access device fraud for card uses | Presley: had authority for business charges and did not exceed scope; disputed personal charges | Government: used cards for personal expenses without authorization | Affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel claim | Presley: trial counsel failed to file pretrial motions, motions in limine, object to PSR, and move for mistrial over witness communications | Government: claim not properly developed on record for direct appeal | Dismissed on direct appeal without prejudice — must be raised in § 2255 to develop record |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254 (5th Cir.) (jury decides witness credibility)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087 (5th Cir.) (ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily not resolved on direct appeal without developed record)
- United States v. Gulley, 526 F.3d 809 (5th Cir.) (declining to consider ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal when record insufficient)