*1 found, along in cash with the $1600 grams methamphetamine 71.7 and found DOUE, Appellant, Charles L. in a boot. John Friedel testified that the 18-wheeler and the automo- truck Porsche 3, bile front of the residence on October TEXARKANA, Texas; The CITY OF appellant’s. 1988 were Texarkana, Texas, Independent School District; Community The Texarkana Eliminating testimony, now turn Texas; College; County, remaining evidence. When Officer Rochelle, Trustee, Jerry Appellees. A. residence, he found Chance searched bedroom, including trip a documents in a No. 9741. signed Blackmon, lease John dated June 10,1988; inspection a and use report trailer Texas, Appeals Court of Blackmon; agreement signed by John Texarkana. repair bearing ap- truck and trailer ticket name, 19, 21, pellant’s April dated Feb.
envelope to John addressed Blackmon 20, Rehearing Denied March 382C, Cleveland, Texas; Route Box Card; Uniform and a Identification Cab
buyer’s tag for a 1977 International Har- bearing appellant’s show-
vester name and 23,1988. In
ing the date sold as March bedroom,
same officers found $1600
cash, methamphetamine in a boot. bearing
Officers found a can of toluol lab,
appellant’s fingerprints located in the chemicals,
among manufacturing
equipment, methamphetamine. toluene,
Witnesses testified that a common toluol, produce
name could be used to
phenylacetone, major ingredient of meth-
amphetamine. On October four raid, appellant
days after the was at the Friedel load-
residence with John and was truck. property on a determining sufficiency of the cor
roboration, light evidence is in a viewed See, e.g.,
most favorable the verdict. State, 749
Martinez v. S.W.2d pet.). We Antonio — San appellant hold that the evidence connects charged the offense and therefore sat
with
isfies article 38.14.
Point of error four overruled. is affirmed. *2 posture. appeal, we sus
similar In that held Doue’s of error and that tained trial court’s supported finding taxing authorities used due that the Thus, diligence to Doue. we held locate citation judgment on that based publication City stand. Doue could not (Tex.App.— Texarkana, denied). Because the Texarkana had no authorities used dil produce that had Doue, igence locate attempting and remanded cause reversed court, of the tax limited to the issue attempting to ing diligence locate Doue. hearing,
The trial held a limited to single and found that attempting had units exercised purposes to ascertain address for Doue’s obtaining by publication. ap- This citation peal on of Doue’s com- turns our resolution support plaint that does not the evidence finding. Doue’s Point of Error states presented authori- finding support ties does not argument inquiry. and the un- urg- reasonably der it can be construed legal insufficiency contention. Several witnesses testified about Wayne an for Doue. locate Bouterse, for assessor-collector City of testified that his office Doue had never had an address for Anderson, Keeney, Raymond D. an address that Doue had never furnished Miller, Anderson, Tate, James & Texar- preparation to the tax office. When for kana, appellant. for filing began, Doue had the lawsuit Rochelle, Rochelle, Lavender, A. Jerry city property for paid taxes on the Dickerson, Texarkana, Ark., Barnette & eight through al- years, from 1975 pro se. county taxes. Nei- though he his had delinquent Allen, Veselka, nor the McCreary, Beck ther the current tax roll Harvey had Austin, appellees. rolls for of Texarkana an Allen, other & for explained address for Bouterse also Doue. District CORNELIUS, Chief Justice. attempted Doue without suc- to locate again appeals the tri Charles to Doue cess and that of the mail sent some denying petition his judgment al court’s appraisal returned by the district was sought he to set in which bill review postal service. sale of aside a foreclosure Allen, representing delinquent taxes. property his real units, that he was con- testified previously before us appeal (2) Redemption finding cerned about Doue’s address and certificates mailed expressed that this was to Bouterse. Allen tax assessor/collector requested Bouterse to make the de- water at his California address partment available, exam- years and 1977. telephone ined. He also di- examined signed by Personal Doue in checks city directory, the most rectory, recent his payment county state and taxes *3 if the tax rolls to determine other 1983, 1980, 1981, 1982, years property might was owned Doue which 1985, and All 1986. of these Also, have a correct address. Allen and show his correct ad- checks California property Bouterse to the to went determine dress. sign whether there was a “for sale” or (4) taxing A letter from the law might other evidence which lead to an ad- (who signed by McCreary Jack firm Additionally, dress for Doue. the deed signed by publi- the affidavit for citation if any records were examined to see ad- cation) correct to at his address might dress for Doue. fur- be found Allen demanding payment delinquent of state ther that he stated examined Bowie taxes, county notation in ink with a roll and had an County tax that it address on it at the bottom of the letter that the taxes which was noted to be incorrect address. Allen testified that he had taken paid were with check number 129 dated investigative steps all of rea- 21, 1978. sonable under the circumstances and that A of value appraised notice sent attempting he had in ascer- been on the Bowie District
tain
location.
Doue’s
county, city,
behalf of
school and
that,
argument
taxing
crux of Doue’s
college
districts to Doue
a for-
at
notwithstanding the
made
mer
California street address for
him,
taxing
his
units to locate
correct ad-
values.
dress
on
County
was shown
tax
appeal
We remanded
case on
first
1979,
years
records for the
and 1981.
give
entities
argument
Further facts central to Doue’s
show,
they could,
if
evidence contradict-
that, although
are
Allen
checked
we
to.
the evidence
referred
See Doue
County
in the Bowie
tax
records
office
At they investigated shown no evidence that process requires person deprived that no be easily available sources for Doue’s ad property by any adjudication dress, legally unless that is insufficient to evidence required diligence. adjudication preceded show As the evi is notice to the legally dence is it is also factu owner and a reasonable for an ally insufficient. appropriate hearing. The notice must be calculated, reasonably under all the circum judgment denying sought the relief stances, apprise pend- the owner of the Judgment by bill of review is reversed. is ency oppor- granting of the action and afford him an here rendered Doue’s bill of re- Contrary argument, ing payment attorney to the dissent’s for the taxes. If the used conclusively address, obviously showed that time the correct at some by publica- who made the affidavit for citation possession of that information. tion Doue at his correct wrote address demand- setting ‘diligent inquiry’ judgment
view and
aside
foreclosure and tax sale. Anderson v. Col
Appellant,
as ordered
honorable
lum,
(Tex.1974).
assigned treats maintaining entitled is BLEIL, Justice, dissenting. judgment to a as a of law matter because decision, earlier our we reversed and legally the evidence is insufficient. for a rather remanded cause new trial having Once framed a new judgment than render because the legal majority, reference without opportuni units had not been afforded the applicable to the of its standards review ty tending to present evidence to show point, legal “matter of law” breaks new their to locate Doue’s address. ground. up “contradicting” It sets novel Doue v. 476). (Majority standard. at — Texarkana denied). remand, says legal Then it issue is not Upon re the trial court really showing there ceived a considerable amount whether is regarding rather, the extensive efforts to locate diligence; says legal Doue and found that the units made “quality” issue of the efforts concerns inquiry to his whereabouts.1 I 477). (Majority made to locate Doue. conclude that trial court’s perplexing Further are the sev- supported by sufficient evidence would suggestions at- eral *5 judgment. affirm that torney actually possessed had Doue’s cor- rect but failed to check his own appeal, fac- challenges On this the suggestion to file —this seems have arisen findings tual with this of error: “The any in this evi- Court’s chambers —absent presented by Appellee the does finding suggestion.3 to support support the trial court’s of a such a And (g)examining purpose the 1.The first noted the remand, specific findings detailing attorney then the found no made records for 1982 where (mail returned) by to locate Doue shown address and a notation "m.r.” specified dence. The court and made, that at time such check was its found following: paid. the 1982 taxes were not by 1. This matter was remanded the Court of error, drawn, although inartfully Appeals Supreme for the Sixth Judicial Dis- appears challenge sufficiency of to the factual purpose of Texas limited of deter- trict for the support judgment. was the evidence to That mining Attorney whether for or not the issue resolved the trial court. The attor- "diligent Taxing made Defendant Units in- arguments neys’ address that issue. briefs Plaintiff, quiry" the whereabouts of required by L. Doue Rule 117a of Charles majority's preoccupation 3. The with the infor- prior the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure attorney possessed mation Plaintiff; by publication of the citation appears No in the seems curious. Attorney Court finds that what, suggest anything, if record that would Taxing attempted Units to deter- Defendant lawyer in the units or files of mine the whereabouts of Charles L. Doue certainly his law firm. There is no evidence (a) checking a local the title records of title any indicating informa- company; He swore that tion about Doue’s whereabouts. (b) searching city directory; every he knew to check and checked record (c) checking tax records to see if could He even checked the not locate Doue. estate; L. other real Charles Doue owned only Bowie (d) checking the list customers discover the mail sent to Department; Utilities Texarkana Water County was returned undelivered. (e) visually subject inspecting the real es- Nevertheless, misper- signs "For Sale” because tate to determine if letter,” property; ception on "the I am of the facts centers on the (f) examining required L. Doue to further address matter. the deed Charles into dated if reflected on letter which Doue offered determine an address was Deed; copied below: (ma- for Doue’s address” “no sources stating units showed available 477) confounding. equally easily seems investigated jority evidence that *6 they L. 2. had found a name of Charles that he received the letter and If Doue said files, is no reason to taxes, Dave in law firm there indicated the memo in they have assumed that Doue think that and would majority concludes To extent that the 1978. man; and were one and the same Dave establishes, contrary to the sworn this letter that that, the letter was admitted after testimony, that units knew of Doue's changed house. I sent he "moved out whereabouts, points: I make certain my my San address to office in Francisco.” attorneys mailed letter to 1.That may appear majority’s of the evidence view 1978 does not mean knew his address But, is view. it not the to be a reasonable trier of court which is the fact? majority missed all the evi- Could the Texas, Appellant, upon
dence which the trial court found STATE specific by the efforts were made attorney? Perhaps sensing it COMEAUX, Joseph Appellee. Pervis bounds, overstepped majority has its No. 3-88-091-CR. addresses Doue’s actual of error that, passing, saying “As the evidence is Texas, Appeals Court insufficient, legally factually also in- is Austin. 477).4 If ma- (Majority sufficient.” 21, 1990. Feb. properly jority purports to Discretionary Granted Review challenging of error raised the suffi- May ciency the evi- and holds factually prop- then the remedy would be for it reverse and er
remand the case a new trial. by majority
The result reached in this However, this is appears
case laudable. depar
yet another instance of the Court’s
ture rules whenever it from traditional justice.” “to appropriate
seems do compelled I felt
not the first time have See,
express e.g., these sentiments. Pen Penick, (Tex.
ick v. 780 S.W.2d denied) (Bleil, App. writ — Texarkana
J., (I dissenting) objected casting to a aside per
of "traditional rules” to do what was right);
ceived to be and Joiner v. A V AMS Inc.,
Group, denied) (Bleil, J.,
—Texarkana (I
dissenting) urged “just result” by the did violence to our
reached law). Being
system justice under
staunchly proposition committed to the means, I cannot justifies
the end never decision.
join
*7
Briscoe,
(Tex.
v.