Re: Re: Theft by Check Thanks Butch, Hubby is a driver, he's on the road at least 6 straight hours a day , that's why I'm in a hurry to get this resolved.
Re: Re: Theft by Check Forgot to add, I'm in Houston, TX and the court is Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1 Position 2, Judge Patronella
Re: Re: Theft by Check I found this info about another county on Texas. I will keep searching for your particular place in Houston. It looks as if you pay restitution (the check and a fine, they withdraw the warrant. I will try and find some info specific to Houston. It looks as if you pay restitution and a fee, you are off the hook. Thought this might calm your nerves a bit. 3 day For large checks we suggest you file with the Denton County District Attorneyâ??s Office. For your convenience, these forms are available in our office. We will accept your checks and forward them to the District Attorney. If restitution is made to this office, you will be required to sign for it. Upon payment of restitution and fine, our office will recall the warrant. The law provides for adding a check charge in these criminal cases. The amount charged cannot exceed the amount which is posted in the place of business. The maximum check fee which may be charged is $30.00. DO NOT accept any money and attempt to dismiss the complaint after you have filed the complaint with the Court, or refuse to testify if the defendant pleads not guilty. If you do either of these, we may not accept any future bad checks from you or your business. If the defendant can be located, he must make restitution, have a trial, or go to jail. I found more info and quickly edited. Here it is Bad Check: Issuing a bad check in the State of Texas may be a criminal offense under Sec. 32.41 of the Penal Code of the Texas Statutes. A person is presumed to have knowingly committed fraud if at the time he issued or passed the check he had no account with the bank or other drawee, payment of the check was refused within 30 days after issue and he failed to pay the holder within 10 days after receiving notice of refusal. Notice may be actual or in writing that is sent by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, by telegram with report of delivery requested, or by first class mail if the letter was returned unopened with markings indicating that the address is incorrect and that there is no current forwarding order; or is addressed to the issuer at his address shown on the check, the records of the bank or other drawee; or the records of the person to whom the check or order has been issued or passed. The content of the notice must contain the following statement. "This is a demand for payment in full for a check or order not paid because of a lack of funds or insufficient funds. If you fail to make payment in full within 10 days after the date of receipt of this notice, the failure to pay creates a presumption for committing an offense, and this matter may be referred for criminal prosecution." The maker of a dishonored check may be charged with a Class C or Class B misdemeanor offense but may avoid such conviction by making restitution either through the prosecutor's office if it is in the collection process, or through the Court if an action has been filed. Links to Texas laws, government agencies, and organizations are included here. Always discuss actual cases with your actual legal advisor or legal department. The State Bar of Texas is linked here. The info was found here http://www.lawdog.com/states/tx/checks.htm
Re: Re: Theft by Check Thanks 3day, I also found that same information. I am stuck on not paying it now because it's so old. I've seen some counties were they will not accept prosecuting a check if it's over 2 years old. So my question is, since it's over 2 years old, would it still be valid for them to lawfully prosecute on it. If so, we'll just pay. If not, I'm ready to fight.
I found this in the Texas Code,here under Misdemeanors http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/cptoc.html Art. 12.02. [181] [229] [219] Misdemeanors An indictment or information for any misdemeanor may be presented within two years from the date of the commission of the offense, and not afterward. Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 975, ch. 399, Sec. 2(B), eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Read Vernon's Business & Commerce Code, Chapter 3, Subsection 3.118 a, b, & c http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/bc.toc.htm Gayla
3day, from reading the Texas code it seams as if it's two years. But after reading CG's Vernon's Business & Commerce Code I'm confused. So what do you think applies?
The first link is the criminal code. The second link is the Business and Commerce Code, which is civil code. If the warrants you have verified are definitely for theft by check, then you will need to follow the criminal code.
Here's information from Judge Patronella's court. This still does not make sense though. http://www.jp.hctx.net/1-2/Packets/BadCheck.pdf
Soso, Before you do anything, call back and find out when the warrant is set to EXPIRE. Somewhere, in the back of my little Texan head, I believe that warrants expire after 7 years. If I'm right, and looking at the date of the check (Dec 96), and allowing for the time to get the check back, send your hubby the required letter, and get the warrant sworn out, it sounds like it is about to expire. Some "unscrupulous" attorney, has picked up this information, and is trying to get you to pay at the last minute, and make a few extra bucks. Everyone is talking about the SOL, but if a warrant was filed before Dec 98, I believe it is still a collectible check. Anyway, that is my understanding of the SOL - its filing time, not disposition time. What befuddles me, is how your DH was ever able to get a new DL with a warrant out. LOL - I've had a couple of friends over the years, with unpaid fines get nailed when they tried to renew their license. I would have DH lay low, and do some more research before doing anything. Might be worth a visit to a lawyer.
How can there be criminal charges to collect a debt that's past SOL? Once it's past sol there is no legal debt to enforce. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><-
Butch, I'm assuming the warrant was issued recently. 1*Since we just got this letter yesterday, I assuming it's a recent warrant. I'm pretty sure it is. SoSo71 ```````````````````````````````` Somebody issued a warrent on a POST SOL "debt". What state ya in Soso? Butch `````````````````````` Forgot to add, I'm in Houston, TX SoSo Everyone is talking about the SOL, but if a warrant was filed before Dec 98, I believe it is still a collectible check. jlynn ~~~~~~~~~~~~Since we just got this letter yesterday, I assuming it's a recent warrant. I'm pretty sure it is. SoSo71 ============================= 1* You need to be 100% certain. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Because its not considered a debt. It is considered THEFT. TX recognizes bad checks a couple of different ways. 1. Theft by Check - simultaneous receipt of goods or services 2. Issuance of a bad check - writing a check when you knew it was not good. (They would have to prove intent here). Paying a check after being charged with Theft By Check does not stop further criminal prosecution. Now, a dishonored check in TX is also considered a debt: http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/lo48morales/lo98-084.htm but, it depends on how the OC wants to handle it This particular one decided to put it into the hands of the hot check division, and it became criminal as opposed to civil HTH
1*Because its not considered a debt. It is considered THEFT. 2*Paying a check after being charged with Theft By Check does not stop further criminal prosecution. jlynn ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> 1*Isn't this in conflict with Federal law in that it affords the debtor a lesser degree of consumer protection than does the federal statute??? 2*So what's the point in SOSOs DH trotting off to court Monday Mornin and paying it ???????????
Re: Re: Theft by Check 1. There is no "consumer protection" for THEFT. Your mixing up civil and criminal. The OC in this case opted for a criminal remedy, which is well within their state's rights. 2. I didn't suggest Soso pay this Monday, I suggested the DH remain low while more information is gathered. Although, in hindsight, that is kind of bad on my part. Her DH is facing criminal prosecution, and the only thing I would be doing is heading straight for an attorney for good sound advice.
Re: Re: Re: Theft by Check Here Brownie, here's some excerpts from TX Criminal Code: An indictment or information for any misdemeanor may be presented within two years from the date of the commission of the offense, and not afterward. (b) The time during the pendency of an indictment, information, or complaint shall not be computed in the period of limitation. The term "during the pendency," as used herein, means that period of time beginning with the day the indictment, information, or complaint is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, and ending with the day such accusation is, by an order of a trial court having jurisdiction thereof, determined to be invalid for any reason. ---------------------------------- I am interpreting this to mean, if the OC filed with the DA before Dec 98, then they were within SOL, and so is this check for purposes of criminal prosecution.
Re: Re: Re: Theft by Check I am interpreting this to mean,* if the OC filed with the DA before Dec 98, then they were within SOL, and so is this check for purposes of criminal prosecution. ~~~~~~~~~~~*Since we just got this letter yesterday, I am assuming it's a recent warrant. I'm pretty sure it is. SoSo71 ================= ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>* Is yesterday before or after 12/98 ????????```````???????????~~~~~????????????
Re: Re: Re: Theft by Check Hi Jlynn, thanks for your help. I had already found the information from Judge Patronella's court and it didn't give much information. But from what I understand, Theft by check is different than issuing a bad check. My hubby's charge is for "Issuing A Bad Check" lbrown, I did say that I "assume" that the warrant is of recent issue, because that's the only time laywers send out those letters in Houston and because I know for a fact that my hubby didn't have any warrants as of 12/2003. So I can safely say that this not an old warrant. So that being the case, this warrant was issued after the SOL. Any comments on how we should procede. Hubby is a driver and we can't afford for him to remain low, so we'll certainly have to put up a cash bond tommorrow. Someone stated getting a criminal lawyer. If we do that, we'll be out of more money than we would be if we were to just pay the check and fine. Maybe I am missing something here, but please explain to me why it would better to hire a lawyer and be out of more money. Thanks Everyone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Theft by Check You won't know why it might be better until you know how a warrant got issued on an out of statute check. You need to understand exactly how you got here - as you can see from the many posts on this board, your situation does not make sense, especialy if there was no warrant as of 12/2003. Okay, you want to take care of this. But you need to know why this warrant was issued. From the facts you have provided, someone has probably lied to the prosecutor or the Court. It would be worth far more to THEM than the face value of the check to find a way to make this go away.
