*1 CHEVROLET, ONE 1985 Petitioner, Texas, Respondent. STATE of
Supreme Court of Texas.
Feb. 1993. Overruled June *2 GAMMAGE, HECHT and
Before ENOCH, JJ.
OPINION
GAMMAGE,Justice. involving pick- a is a forfeiture case This up been truck to have used crime The trial court rendered of theft. summary the truck’s owner judgment for complete she the theft because before goods her placed ever the vehicle. justice one dissent- with ing, and for reversed rendered legislature in- the a liberal construction the words tended felony. in the commission of” a in- That would here court’s construction clude truck to S.W.2d 778. We hold that the crime theft was owner ever truck, lan- plain loaded her and that guage of the statute “used the commis- felony, precludes any sion of” the “broad” beyond the ex- “liberal” judg- press used. We reverse the words and ment of the court of affirm judgment. trial court’s briefly applica- facts and review the Acting tip Margari- ble statutes. on conducting fencing ta DeAlmanza was residence, operation under- out her an cover officer with confidential went residence to sell informant to DeAlmanza’s The officer items of eleven represented sto- expressly the items were len, agreed buy them and DeAlmanza $150, gave for the officer $300. She told him he should come back later for money. intended rest She stated she get to sell the items her brother-in-law money. The the rest of the officer helped unload the items informant eleven into DeAlmanza’s residence. At DeAlman- McGarvey, Dallas, peti- William R. and informant then request, za’s tioner. from her residence loaded several items Dallas, into Morales, just-purchased and four of the items Moye, Lisa A. Dan Aus- tin, Vance, Dallas, respondent. John DeAlmanza’s Chevrolet pro- broadly forfeiture statute to include offense,” ceedings. property used “to facilitate the apparently including any facilitation after The officer and the informant then left preserve the crime is Both to premises. telephoned The officer *3 comity with decisions of our sister court of supervisor him that a and told sale had resort, last the Court of Criminal requested occurred. He that a search war- and to our construc- follow own The returned to the rant issue. precedent, agree tion we cannot with this later, residence some fifteen minutes unambiguous loose construction of an stat- gone. and her truck DeAlmanza were ute. assigned Another officer had been to sur- only It is “contraband” Driving of DeAlmanza. an un- veillance by asserted under the statute car, DeAlmanza for marked he followed the State. Tex.Code CRIM.PROC.art. 59.- she left the about fifteen minutes after 02(a) (Supp.1993). is statu- “Contraband” house, he radio until heard over property, including torily any defined as judge signed for her that a had a warrant real, personal, tangible, intangible, or then arrest. The surveillance officer sum- any felony in under the commission of car, squad moned a marked whose driver Chapter 31 of the Penal Code. Tex.Code inventory An stopped and arrested her. 59.01(2)(A)(ii) (Supp.1993). CRIM.PROC.art. search revealed nine stolen items pickup, including four items the undercover only Chapter felony 31 al officer had sold DeAlmanza. leged by justify the forfeiture State theft, to was the offense of which subsequently pleaded guilty guilty plea. The manza had entered her property to the criminal offense of theft of person if offense of theft occurs unlaw valued over The State then filed the $750. fully appropriates property with intent against pickup forfeiture action property. Tex.Pe deprive the of the owner truck DeAlmanza had used to 31.03(a). Appropriation of nal Code § stolen items. The State she had property if in the property is “unlawful” used the truck “in the commission of the any agency enforcement custody of law offense” and that the truck was conse- explicitly represented by any law en was quently subject Chapter to forfeiture under being sto agent to the actor as forcement 59 of the Texas of Proce- Code Criminal property appropriates len and actor alleged only the offense dure. State believing by stolen another. Tex.Pe it was property of of valued over $750. theft 31.03(b). “appropriate” To nal Code § and DeAlmanza filed mo- Both State exercise con acquire means to or otherwise summary judgment. tions for The trial real property trol other than over granted DeAlmanza’s motion on the 31.01(5)(B). Appropria Tex.Penal Code § all of the elements of the offense basis that unlawfully person tion occurs when one completed her home of theft were at property belonging exercises control over pickup and that the arrest State, 707 S.W.2d to another. Freeman v. not used “in the commission of In the con (Tex.Crim.App.1986). of under the of an offense” theft Code determining the statute text of when Procedure. The trial court denied for the offense begins limitations to run motion. State’s Appeals has of Criminal the Court appeals reversed and ren- the offense is The court addressed when (Tex. judgment dered for the 824 S.W.2d Barnes v. held that Crim.App.1991), used in the commis- that court the vehicle had been as a matter of each element sion of the offense offense is occurred, disregarding appeals’ majority opin- law. The court of crime has transportation that it had to construe the ion reasoned court. of the trial judgment and affirm require a broad The words held Tex.R.App.P. 170. appeals are by the court of Chapter of” in in the commission When Procedure. of the Code of Criminal HECHT, J., opinion dissents with unambiguous, a court a statute is clear ENOCH, J., joins. which rules of construction should not use HECHT, Justice, dissenting. it, but should extrinsic aids to construe meaning. common Cail give the statute its I affirm the I dissent. would Motors, Inc., for the reasons v. Service of the court of opinion. in its stated (Tex.1983); parte Roloff, 510 Ex *4 913, (Tex.1974). quoted S.W.2d unambiguous.
language clear and of the of completed the elements manza possession she took fense of theft when property from the officer. Rid (Tex.Crim. er v. “used in the commission App.1978). To be crime, property had to have of” the De Patricia Canavati CHECA Laura taking of during been used before al., Appellants, et possession. truck at issue was not so reject used. We the State’s contention “continuing offense”
theft was somehow HOSPITAL, DIAGNOSTIC CENTER purposes of the forfeiture statute. al., Appellees. INC. et find Barnes further instructive be- similarity of the contentions. cause Supreme of Texas. Court urged the State theft as con- Barnes
tinuing purposes of the limita- offense April Ap- tions statute. The Court of Criminal 16, 1993. June Overruled legisla- peals specifically took note that the continuing designate ture not theft as a did Barnes, Fur-
offense.