Tex. Penal Code § 32.47

Fraudulent Destruction, Removal, Or Concealment Of Writing

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 32.47. FRAUDULENT DESTRUCTION, REMOVAL, OR CONCEALMENT OF WRITING. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to defraud or harm another, he destroys, removes, conceals, alters, substitutes, or otherwise impairs the verity, legibility, or availability of a writing, other than a governmental record.

(b) For purposes of this section, "writing" includes:

(1) printing or any other method of recording information;

(2) money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit cards, badges, trademarks;

(3) symbols of value, right, privilege, or identification; and

(4) universal product codes, labels, price tags, or markings on goods.

(1) the writing is not attached to tangible property to indicate the price for the sale of that property; and

(2) the actor did not engage in the conduct described by Subsection (a) with respect to that writing for the purpose of obtaining the property for a lesser price indicated by a separate writing.

(d) An offense under this section is a state jail felony if the writing:

(1) is a will or codicil of another, whether or not the maker is alive or dead and whether or not it has been admitted to probate; or

(2) is a deed, mortgage, deed of trust, security instrument, security agreement, or other writing for which the law provides public recording or filing, whether or not the writing has been acknowledged.

(e) If at the time of the offense the writing was attached to tangible property to indicate the price for the sale of that property and the actor engaged in the conduct described by Subsection (a) with respect to that writing for the purpose of obtaining the property for a lesser price indicated by a separate writing, an offense under this section is:

(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the difference between the impaired writing and the lesser price indicated by the other writing is less than $100;

(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the difference between the impaired writing and the lesser price indicated by the other writing is $100 or more but less than $750;

(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the difference between the impaired writing and the lesser price indicated by the other writing is $750 or more but less than $2,500;

(4) a state jail felony if the difference between the impaired writing and the lesser price indicated by the other writing is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000;

(5) a felony of the third degree if the difference between the impaired writing and the lesser price indicated by the other writing is $30,000 or more but less than $150,000;

(6) a felony of the second degree if the difference between the impaired writing and the lesser price indicated by the other writing is $150,000 or more but less than $300,000; or

(7) a felony of the first degree if the difference between the impaired writing and the lesser price indicated by the other writing is $300,000 or more.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 21, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:

Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 215 (H.B. 427), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2019.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1986–2017 · leading case: MVS International Corporation and Manuel Saturno v. International Advertising Solutions, LLC, Next Level Firm, LLC, Rene

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

MVS International Corporation and Manuel Saturno v. International Advertising Solutions, LLC, Next Level Firm, LLC, Rene (2017) texapp “”); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.47(a)(West 2016)(“A person commits an offense if, with intent to defraud or harm another, he .”

Boales v. Brighton Builders, Inc. (2000) texapp “Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 32.47 (Vernon 1994).”

In re E.P. (2006) texapp · cites it 2× “See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 32.47 (West 2003). E.”

Canto-Deport v. State (1988) texapp “The State charged appellant under Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 32.47 (Vernon 1974).”

Service Corp. International v. Guerra (2009) texapp “While it is true that appellants would have committed a qualifying felony if they intentionally impaired the verity of a publicly-recorded writing, see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.47 (a) (Vernon 2003), the Guerras’ claims, nonetheless, would have fallen within the statutory cap…”

Rhodes v. State (1986) texapp “See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.47 (Vernon 1974).”

in the Matter of E. P. (2006) texapp · cites it 2× “See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 32.47 (West 2003). E.”

McCay, Mark (2015) tex · cites it 2× “7 TEX. PENAL CODE §32.47(d)(1) ............”

Lang Van Huynh and Sonny K. Huynh v. Tho Thi Phung (2007) texapp “Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 32.47 (a) (Vernon 2003) (pertaining to fraudulent destruction, removal, or concealment of writing and defining writing as (1) printing or any other method of recording information; (2) money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit cards, badges, trademarks;…”

Stephen Andrew Mashburn v. State (2008) texapp “); see also TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 32.47(a), (b)(4) (Vernon 2003) (making it a crime to fraudulently destroy, remove, conceal, etc.”

Service Corporation International and Sci Texas Funeral Services, Inc., D/B/A Mont Meta Memorial Park v. Juanita G. Guer (2009) texapp “While it is true that appellants would have committed a qualifying felony if they intentionally impaired the verity of a publicly-recorded writing, see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.47 (a) (Vernon 2003), the Guerras' claims, nonetheless, would have fallen within the statutory cap…”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Tex. Penal Code § 32.47(a) — 3 cases

In re E.P. (2006) texapp “See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 32.47 (West 2003). E.”

Stephen Andrew Mashburn v. State (2008) texapp “); see also TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 32.47(a), (b)(4) (Vernon 2003) (making it a crime to fraudulently destroy, remove, conceal, etc.”

— Tex. Penal Code § 32.47(d)(1) — 1 case

McCay, Mark (2015) tex “7 TEX. PENAL CODE §32.47(d)(1) ............”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.