Theft

Why did I get a letter from Wal-Mart demanding that I pay them $350?

When a person is arrested for theft or shoplifting in Fort Worth and comes to consult with one of our Fort Worth criminal defense attorneys, one of the most common issues we're asked about is what to do about a civil demand letter.

What is a civil demand letter?

When a person is arrested for shoplifting, many times the larger retailers will follow up the arrest with a civil demand letter. These letters demand payment of a civil penalty to the retailer. Typically, these letters will be sent directly from the store, a law firm or debt collector and they usually ask for between $200.00 - $400.00 (regardless of the amount that was stolen). The key to remember is that this is civil demand and is separate from the criminal case. What happens with the civil demand letter will have no bearing on the criminal case.

Should I pay Wal-Mart on the demand letter?

Your options when you receive a dmeand letter after an arrest for theft are:

1. Pay the penalty if you want to stop the letters from being sent, or
2. Don't pay and force them to sue if they choose to.

Technically, the amount that the store is demanding is not owed but is something the store feels like it could sue for. What's important to remember is that for a store to sue a shoplifter for these types of damages, they would have to pursue their cause of action under the Texas Theft Liability Act.

What if the store recovered the property on the scene?

Under this act, a person may be liable for damages resulting from the theft. But, the act specifically states that a store may only recover the amount of actual damages sustained not to exceed $1000.00. The key term here is "actual damages." In the majority of shoplifting cases, the property being stolen is recovered. In that case, there would be no "actual damages" because the store has not suffered any true loss. If so, the store would not be able to prove that they've suffered any actual damages and would not be able to recover a judgment.

So, whether or not they would be successful in a lawsuit is one issue. Another is whether the retailer feels like expending the fees to bring a suit is even worth it if even the most they could recover would be $1000.00. I have yet to have a client (and have yet to speak with any other attorneys with clients) who has received one of these letters being actually sued by one of these retailers - regardless of whether they pay or not.

Ultimately, whether you pay a retailer after receiving one of these civil demand letters is up to you. But, don't expect the trial of the century if you don't.

Contact our Fort Worth Theft Defense Attorneys if You Have Received a Civil Demand Letter

Our criminal defense attorneys, with offices in Fort Worth, Keller, and Grapevine, are experienced in all types of theft cases in Tarrant County. Contact us today for a FREE consultation at (817) 993-9249.

Changes to Texas Theft Laws | Fort Worth Theft Crimes Attorneys

• Theft Under $50 Theft Under $100
• Theft $50 - $500 Theft $100 - $750
• Theft $500 - $1,500 Theft $750 - $2,500
• Theft $1,500 - $20,000 Theft 2,500 - $30,000
• Theft $20,000 - $100,000 Theft $30,000 - $150,000
• Theft $100,000 - $300,000 Theft $150,000 - $300,000

The new values for these offenses will apply to all offenses committed on or after September 1, 2015.  For offenses that pre-date 9/1/15, that theft offenses will remain under the old statutory scheme.

The New Value Ladder

The Texas Penal Code uses a standard value ladder in cases of theft and many other property and economic crimes to determine the grade of an offense. On September 1, 2015, HB 1396 changed the standard value ladder for theft in Texas—this is the first time this has happened since 1993. Under the value ladder, as the value of property lost increases, the seriousness of the crime increases. Below are the updated values:

• Under $100 is a Class C Misdemeanor;
• $100 or more, but less than $750 is a Class B Misdemeanor;
• $750 or more, but les than $2,500 is a Class A Misdemeanor;
• $2,500 or more, but less than $30,000 is a State Jail Felony;
• $30,000 or more, but less than $150,000 is a Third Degree Felony;
• $150,000 or more, but less than $300,000 is a Second Degree Felony; and
• More than $300,000 is a First Degree Felony.

The change in law also includes a savings clause. This clause provides that the change in law applies only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of the article. As such, an offense is committed before the effective date of the article if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date. This savings clause is an important factor when dealing with aggregate theft.

What is Aggregate Theft?

Aggregate theft is an offense where two or more thefts were committed “pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct” and the amounts are combined to determine the grade of the offense. Tex. Penal Code § 31.09. Pursuant to Section 31.09 of the Texas Penal Code, aggregate theft may be considered as one offense—it is a sum of all its parts. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that the State need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully appropriated enough property to meet the aggregated value alleged. Since the value alleged will determine the grade of offense charged, applying the correct statute is essential.

How Does the New Value Ladder Apply to Aggregate Thefts?

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held time and time again that we are to interpret statutes in accordance with their plain meaning unless the language is ambiguous or the plain meaning would lead to absurd results. Thus, applying the plain meaning of the savings clause found in Section 31.09, the former law’s penalties apply to the offense of aggregated theft if any element of a continuing theft was committed before the effective date of the new law. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that this “interpretation does not lead to absurd results because one could reasonably conclude that the legislature intended for the old penalties to attach to a scheme or continuing course of conduct that was begun before the effective date of the new law.” Dickens v. State, 981 S.W.2d 186, 187-88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Thus, if a defendant is being charged with aggregate theft and any element of their charge occurred before September 1, 2015, former law will apply to determine the grade of the offense.

Theft Crime Defense Lawyers | Fort Worth Criminal Defense Firm

The Fort Worth criminal defense attorneys at Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC handle all ranges of property crimes from simple shoplifting to armed robbery and everywhere in between. If you are under investigation for a property or theft offense or have already been charged, contact Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC today for a free consultation of your case at 817.993.9249.

To the average person, the offense of Forgery probably doesn't sound like something that occurs on a regular basis. The term "forgery" usually conjures up the image of a shady artist carefully recreating some poor, unsuspecting victim's signature and then passing themselves off using the victim's identity. While an act like this most certainly would be forgery, the offense in Texas actually encompasses a broad range of activities and, because of that, it is much more common than most people realize.

The definition of forgery is laid out in Sec. 32.21(b), which states that,

a person commits an offense if he forges a writing with intent to defraud another.

Simple enough, right? Not quite. The simple definition of forgery begs multiple questions. For instance, what is the definition of "forge?" And, what is the definition of "writing?" This is where the net gets bigger.

The legislature defined "forge" in Sec. 32.21(1) to include a wide range of acts. These include altering, making, completing, executing, or authenticating any writing with the intent to defraud in addition to issuing, transferring, registering the transfer of, passing, publishing, or otherwise uttering a writing that is forged. What is a "writing" you ask? Well, the legislature decided to stretch the net even further by defining a writing as a printing or any other method of recording information as well as money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit cards, badges, trademarks, symbols of value, right, privilege or identification.

Most forgery cases in Texas deal with the writing or passing of forged checks or fake currency. Occasionally, we see cases involving credit or debit cards charged as forgery (although there is another offense in the code more accurate to charge these types of offenses). While we see quite a few of these more common offenses involving checks, I can't say that we've ever seen as case of forgery involving publishing a symbol of privilege with the intent to defraud.

But, as you can see the net is wide and I'm sure someplace, sometime one of those exotic forgery fishes will be caught up in the State's tangled web.

Can a bad contractor be convicted for theft?

If you've ever gone through a home renovation or something similar, you have likely experienced periods of frustration with your contractor or construction crew.  This may stem from missed deadlines, shoddy workmanship, mistakes, or general incompetence. In extreme cases, you might have felt duped by the contractor, so much that you think he should be held criminally liable for the promises on which he failed to deliver.

Can a contractor be held criminally liable for his failures?  Texas law says YES (in certain circumstances).

In a recent case out of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the court upheld the felony criminal conviction of a contractor for theft when he accepted money and failed to deliver under the contract for services.  The court explained that in most cases, dissatisfied consumers will have to resort to the civil courts, but in extreme cases, a contractor could be convicted of theft when he accepts money and utterly fails to perform.

You can read the full opinion of the court regarding Contractor Theft.

Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC is a criminal defense law firm in Fort Worth, Texas.  Call us today for a free consultation of your criminal matter at (817) 993-9249.

Below is a case update from the 5th Circuit (Federal)

U.S. v. Cooke, 5th Circuit, March 13, 2012

While appellant was in jail, federal agents approached him and asked for consent to search his house.  He refused.  A week later, while he was still in jail, federal agents went to his house to conduct a knock-and-talk interview.  Appellant’s house was a windowless structure that had two large sliding exterior barn doors.  Behind the barn doors was a large area with a dirt floor and a paved sidewalk path that led to a stoop and another set of doors.  Behind these interior doors were the living quarters where appellant, his wife and his mother lived.  When the agents approached the house, they noticed that one of the exterior barn doors was damaged, allowing them access to walk directly up to the interior doors.  Believing that knocking on the barn door would be futile, the agents walked through the open barn door and knocked on the interior set of doors.  Appellant’s mother answered the door and granted the agents consent to enter the house.  Once inside the house, the agents saw a shotgun shell and gun safe in plain view.  Based on these observations, the agents obtained a search warrant and found illegal firearms, ammunition and a bulletproof vest in appellant’s house.

Appellant argued that the agents unlawfully entered the curtilage of his house when they crossed the threshold of the barn door without a warrant or consent.  The court held that the area inside the barn doors, but outside the interior doors was not part of the curtilage, so the agents did not violate appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights by entering the area without consent or a warrant in order to knock on the interior doors.  First, the area had a dirt floor and a paved sidewalk that led to the interior doors.  Second, the contents of the area included non-operating washing machines and dryers, ladders, a grill and other items indicating that the space was used for storage.  Finally, the barn door was open wide enough such that the items stored there were exposed to the elements, the public could see into the area from the street, and anyone would reasonably think that they would have to enter and knock on the interior doors when visiting.

Appellant also argued that under Georgia v. Randolph the warrantless search was invalid because his mother’s consent to the agents’ entry into the house was trumped by his previous refusal to consent.  The court disagreed, stating that Randolph only applied to co-tenants who were physically present and immediately objected to the other co-tenant’s consent.  Here, appellant was not a present and objecting co tenant, but rather was miles away from his home and in jail when he objected to the search.

The Seventh and Eighth Circuits agree and allow searches under similar circumstances; however, the Ninth Circuit does not.