Sec. 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
(c) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the simulating document:
(1) states that it is not legal process; or
(2) purports to have been issued or authorized by a person or entity who did not have lawful authority to issue or authorize the document.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the simulating document was filed with, presented to, or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a court created or established under the constitution or laws of this state, there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a).
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(f) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, Sec. 3, eff. May 21, 1997.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases, 1988–2020 · leading case:
Runningwolf v. State, 360 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
Runningwolf v. State, 360 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
· cites it 16× “Michael Runningwolf appealed his conviction for simulating legal process under Texas Penal Code § 32.48, claiming that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict.”
Runningwolf v. State, 317 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.48 (a)(2). When we interpret a statute, we look to the literal text for its meaning, and we ordinarily give effect to that plain meaning, unless the plain language is ambiguous or the application of the statute’s plain language would lead to absurd…”
Saldana v. State, 109 S.W.3d 4 (Tex. App. 2002).
“Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 32.48 (Vernon Supp.2002), Simulating Legal Process, provides in relevant part: (a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with…”
Kerr v. State, 83 S.W.3d 832 (Tex. App. 2002).
“Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 32.48 (Vernon Supp.2002).”
State v. Duffey, 981 P.2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
“Codified Laws § 22-12-5 (Lexis 1998) (uttering simulated process); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.48 (West Supp. 1999); Utah Code Ann.”
Gallegos v. State, 828 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. App. 1992).
“In Austin, appellant relied upon an attorney’s opinion that his business did not constitute an endless chain scheme, prohibited by Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 32.48 (Vernon 1989).”
Runningwolf, Michael (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
· cites it 7× “O P I N I O N Michael Runningwolf appealed his conviction for simulating legal process under Texas Penal Code § 32.48, claiming that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict.”
Philpot v. State, 761 S.W.2d 803 (Tex. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 32.48. He was convicted and the court assessed punishment at confinement for six months and a fine of $1,000.”
James Marlin Ebert v. State (Tex. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “The court also found Ebert in criminal contempt for leaving the courtroom during the sentencing hearing and assessed a 60-day term of confinement to be served consecutively to the jail term on the eight convictions.”
James Marlin Ebert v. State (Tex. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “The court 1 Appellant punctuates his name at times with a hyphen between James and Marlin and at times with a colon between Marlin and Ebert.”
Michael Runningwolf v. State (Tex. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “" Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.48 (a)(2). When we interpret a statute, we look to the literal text for its meaning, and we ordinarily give effect to that plain meaning, unless the plain language is ambiguous or the application of the statute's plain language would lead to absurd…”
— Tex. Penal Code § 32.48(a)(2) — 1 case
— Tex. Penal Code § 32.48(c) — 3 cases
Runningwolf v. State, 360 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
“Michael Runningwolf appealed his conviction for simulating legal process under Texas Penal Code § 32.48, claiming that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict.”
Runningwolf, Michael (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
“O P I N I O N Michael Runningwolf appealed his conviction for simulating legal process under Texas Penal Code § 32.48, claiming that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 32.48(c)(2) — 1 case
— Tex. Penal Code § 32.48(d) — 3 cases
Runningwolf v. State, 360 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
“Michael Runningwolf appealed his conviction for simulating legal process under Texas Penal Code § 32.48, claiming that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict.”
Runningwolf, Michael (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
“O P I N I O N Michael Runningwolf appealed his conviction for simulating legal process under Texas Penal Code § 32.48, claiming that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 32.48(f) — 1 case
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.