State v. Donaldson
557 S.W.3d 33 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas Penal Code § 32.51, the allowable unit of prosecution for fraudulent use or possession of identifying information is each individual item of identifying information, not the overall act of identity theft. Therefore, successive prosecutions for possessing different items of identifying information do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, even if the items were obtained in the same criminal episode.
Facts:
- On or about December 23, 2013, Eric Wayne Donaldson stole Patricia Ross's purse from her shopping cart in Comal County.
- The purse contained multiple items of Ross's identifying information, including her Texas Driver's License, a debit card, and at least seven different credit cards.
- Sometime after the theft, Donaldson was arrested in Hays County while in the process of stealing another woman's purse.
- At the time of his arrest in Hays County, Donaldson was in possession of Patricia Ross's identifying information.
Procedural Posture:
- A Hays County grand jury indicted Eric Wayne Donaldson for fraudulent use or possession of identifying information of less than five items from Patricia Ross and others.
- A Comal County grand jury separately indicted Donaldson for fraudulent use or possession of five to ten specific items of identifying information belonging solely to Patricia Ross.
- Donaldson pled guilty to and was convicted of the Hays County charges in the trial court.
- Donaldson then filed a motion to quash the Comal County indictment in that county's trial court, arguing it violated double jeopardy.
- The Comal County trial court granted Donaldson's motion, dismissing the relevant count of the indictment.
- The State, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Texas Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a subsequent prosecution for fraudulent possession of specific items of a victim's identifying information violate the Double Jeopardy Clause when the defendant has already been convicted under the same statute for possessing other, vaguely described identifying information from the same victim arising from the same criminal episode?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodwin, J.
No, the subsequent prosecution does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court reasoned that the allowable 'unit of prosecution' for fraudulent possession of identifying information under Texas Penal Code § 32.51 is each separate item of identifying information. To determine this, the court conducted a statutory construction analysis, focusing on the statute's grammar. The phrase 'an item of identifying information' uses a singular article ('an'), which indicates the legislature intended for each distinct item to be a separate offense. The court therefore held that the trial court erred by concluding the unit of prosecution was the entire 'act of identity theft.' Because the Comal County indictment listed specific items (a driver's license and specific credit cards) that were not demonstrably the same as the vaguely described items in the Hays County conviction, Donaldson failed to meet his burden of proving the two prosecutions were for the same offense.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that Texas prosecutors can 'stack' charges for identity theft, treating each piece of unlawfully possessed information as a separate crime. This significantly increases a defendant's potential criminal exposure from a single act of theft, such as stealing a wallet. The ruling places a high burden on defendants raising a double jeopardy claim to provide a detailed record proving that the specific items in a new indictment are the exact same items for which they were previously convicted, which can be difficult if the first conviction was based on a vaguely worded charging instrument.
