Section 31.01 (1) of the Texas Penal Code defines A deception : by words or conduct a false impression of law OR fact that is likely to affect .......

[8]Section 32.46 provides as follows:



(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to defraud or harm any person, he, by deception:

(1) causes another to sign or execute any document affecting propertyor service or the pecuniary interest of any person . . .



(d) In this section, Adeception@ has the meaning assigned by Section 31.01.

See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 32.46 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).

Section 31.01 (1) of the Texas Penal Code defines Adeception@ to mean, among other things:

(A) creating or confirming by words or conduct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, and that the actor does not believe to be true [or];

(B) failing to correct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, that the actor previously created or confirmed by words or conduct, and that the actor does not now believe to be true.

See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 31.01(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).

The State presented evidence intentionally knowing his conduct is unlawful; not to mention ILLEGAL!

Section 39.03 provides in relevant part:

^{(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:}

^{(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;}

^{(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or}

^{(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.}

^{4. The State presented evidence that appellant, during a routine traffic stop, physically assaulted Napoles and then arrested him without a warrant and without probable cause.}

^{5. We will assume, without deciding, that appellant's claim could properly be raised for the first time on appeal. See Gonzales v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000).}

^{6. In his brief to this Court, appellant states that he "unequivocally concur[s] with the State's analysis of the allowable unit of prosecution. ... A person can properly be charged with multiple counts of official oppression against a single victim - for multiple acts." (Emphasis in original.)}

RR 106 volume 3 of 3 @7-22

Mr. Hubert: Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to
have an image in your head. I want you to have an image of
someone taking the money out of the collection plate at church
because they think they need it. because that's exactly what
happened here. The question is did she knowingly check the
"no" box eight times and did she do it to get more money? Did
she do it intentionally? If she did, she's guilty. Okay.
Now, Ladies and gentlemen, first judge the demeanor of the
witnesses. What were the State's witnesses like? They got up.
They tried to answer the questions as truthfully as possible
because you know what? They have no reason to lie. It doesn't
matter. They don't get a raise if they get this case. They
don't get fired if they get this case. They get up
there. They tell What happened. What about the Defense
witnesses? Well , let's see. There was evasive statements. I
would ask a question. They would answer a different question.

Lahaley:( how is that?)"not the right answer?"