Menard, Arthur Noah v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 155th District Court of Austin County

Affirmedand Memorandum Opinion filed April 18, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00717-CR

____________

ARTHUR NOAH MENARD, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 155th District Court

Austin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2003R-0088

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Arthur Noah Menard, was convicted of credit card abuse and sentenced to 300 days in a state jail facility. In his sole point of error, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm.

Appellant and the complainant ended a romantic relationship on or about the same date appellant took one of the complainant=s credit cards and, without her permission, withdrew $303.00 in cash advances from an ATM and also charged $24.95 to an online dating service. The credit card was never recovered. Appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because the State offered no evidence, including the card itself, to show appellant ever used a credit card bearing, on its face, the complainant=s name.

In a legal sufficiency review, we look at the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 n.12 (1979); Wilson v. State, 7 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). We do not engage in a second evaluation of the weight and credibility of the evidence, but only ensure the jury reached a rational decision. Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

To convict a person of credit card abuse, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person, with intent to obtain a benefit fraudulently, used a credit card knowing the card was not issued to him and that he did not have the effective consent of the cardholder. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 32.31(b)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2005). ACardholder@ is defined as the person named on the face of a credit card and to whom the card is issued. Id. ' 32.31(a)(1). At trial, the State offered evidence showing the complainant was issued a credit card, her name appeared on its face, and appellant stole and used that same credit card. We find this evidence is legally sufficient to establish the complainant as the cardholder.

When reviewing factual sufficiency, we ask only one question: AConsidering all evidence in a neutral light, was a jury rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?@ Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 484B85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). There are two ways the evidence may be factually insufficient: (1) evidence supporting the verdict, considered alone, may be too weak to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or (2) there may be evidence both supporting and contrary to the verdict, but the contrary evidence is so significant that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been found at trial. Id. We must defer to the jury=s findings and not intrude on the jury=s role as the sole judge of witness credibility and of the weight to be given to the evidence. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Here, the evidence, when considered in a neutral light, is amply sufficient to justify a rational jury in finding appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we find the evidence to be factually sufficient to support the verdict.

Aappellant=s sole point of error is overruled, and his conviction is affirmed.

/s/ J. Harvey Hudson

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed April 18, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Fowler, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).