Michael J. DeLitta v. Nancy Schaefer

ACCEPTED 03-15-00280-CV 5703544 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS CAUSE NO. 03-15-00280-CV AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/16/2015 8:03:12 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK In the Third Court of Appeals Austin, Texas FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/16/2015 8:03:12 PM MICHAEL J. DELITTA JEFFREY D. KYLE Appellant Clerk

v.

NANCY SCHAEFER Appellee

Appeal from the 201st Judicial District Court Travis County, Texas; Cause No. D-1-GN-13-003516

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

DRUCKER | HOPKINS LLP Douglas R. Drucker Texas Bar No. 06136100 Kirby D. Hopkins Texas Bar No. 24034488 21 Waterway Avenue, Suite 300 The Woodlands, Texas 77380 281.362.2863 (phone) 855.558.1745 (fax) drucker@druckerhopkins.com (email) hopkins@druckerhopkins.com (email)

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT MICHAEL J. DELITTA

Identity of Parties and Counsel

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, Appellant submits the following designation of parties and counsel, and trial court:

APPELLANT: Michael J. DeLitta (Defendant in Underlying Suit)

APPELLANT’S Douglas R. Drucker COUNSEL: Kirby D. Hopkins Drucker | Hopkins LLP 21 Waterway Avenue, Suite 300 The Woodlands, Texas 77380

APPELLEE: Nancy Schaefer (Plaintiff in Underlying Suit)

APPELLEE’S COUNSEL: Lisa Bowlin Hobbs Kurt Kuhn Kuhn Hobbs PLLC 3307 Northland Drive, Suite 310 Austin, Texas 78731

Howard F. (Sam) Carter The Carter Law Firm 14185 Dallas Parkway Suite 1275 Dallas, Texas 75254

Donald Taylor Taylor Dunham and Rodriguez, LLP 301 Congress Avenue Suite 1050 Austin, Texas 78701

ADDITIONAL PARTIES: Jeff Compton (Provisional Member and Limited- Receiver of Certain Defendants) Axiom Medical Consulting, LLC, Axiom Professionals, LLC, and Axiom Properties, LLC

ADDITIONAL PARTIES’ For Provisional Member Jeff Compton COUNSEL: and Axiom entities:

Eric J. Taube Hohmann, Taube & Summers, LLP 100 Congress Avenue 18th Floor Austin, Texas 78701

TRIAL COURT: Honorable Orlinda Naranjo 201st Judicial District Court Travis County, Texas

Table of Contents

Identity of Parties and Counsel ............................................................... 2 Table of Contents .................................................................................... 4 Table of Authorities ................................................................................. 6 Codes and Regulations ............................................................................8 Statement of the Case .............................................................................. 9 Statement regarding Oral Argument..................................................... 10 Issues Presented ..................................................................................... 11 Issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting the Temporary Injunction on April 22, 2015?.............................................................. 11 Statement of Facts ................................................................................. 12 Summary of Argument .......................................................................... 14 Argument ……………….……………………………………………………..……..…….15

The trial court abused its discretion in granting the Temporary Injunction on April 22, 2015. ................................ 15 1. Appellee Schaefer lacks standing and failed to assert a viable cause of action. ................................................................................ 16 2. Appellee Schaefer failed to demonstrate a probable right of recovery........................................................................................... 18 3. There is no probable, imminent threat of irreparable harm. Appellee Schaefer unreasonable delayed in asserting this request. A temporary Injunction is not necessary to maintain the status quo here.………………………………………………………………………………………21

Conclusion ............................................................................................. 24 Prayer .................................................................................................... 24

Certificate of Compliance ...................................................................... 25 Certificate of Service.............................................................................. 26 Appendix ............................................................................................... 27

Table of Authorities Cases Page(s) BUTNARU V. FORD MOTOR CO., 84 S.W.3d 198, 203, 205, 208 (Tex. 2002)………………………………….15, 16

STATE V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TEL. CO., 526 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. 1975) (orig. proceeding)...............................15

TOM JAMES OF DALLAS INC. V. COBB, 109 S.W.3d 877, 882 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.)...…….………15, 16

WALKER V. PACKER, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) ……………………..…..……..………….….…15

VALENZUELA V. AQUINO, 853 S.W.2d 512, 513 (Tex. 1993)………………………..…………..……….………16

DAVIS V. HENDRICK AUTOGUARD, INC., 294 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. App. Dallas—2009, no pet.)……….….……17, 18

SPURLOCK V. JOHNSON, 94 S.W.3d 655, 657 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2002, no pet.)…….….........18

AGUILAR V. CHASTAIN, 923 S.W.2d 740, 745 (Tex. App.–Tyler 1996, writ denied)…………….......18

FOX V. TROPICAL WAREHOUSE, INC., 121 S.W.3d 853, 861 (Tex. App.–Ft. Worth 2003, no pet.)……………22, 23

JORDAN V. LANDRY’S SEAFOOD REST., INC. 89 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied)……………………………23

JONES V. JEFFERSON CTY., 15 S.W.3d 206, 213 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2002, pet. denied) …………..23

MATRIX NETWORK, INC. V. GINN., 211 S.W.3d 944, 947-48 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.)..…..…….……23

EMSL ANALYTICAL INC. V. YOUNKER, 154 S.W.3d 693, 697 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.)………………………………23

Codes and Regulations

TEX. OCC. CODE Section 101.204 ………………………………………………………………….......16, 17

TEX. OCC. CODE Section 204.302 …………………….…………………………………………........16, 17

TEX. OCC. CODE Section 1304.202 …..………………………………………………………………........17

TEX. PENAL CODE Section 32.52 …………………..………………………………………………...17, 18, 19

Statement of the Case

Appellee Schaefer filed this lawsuit on October 9, 2013.1 The case is a dispute between 50-50 owners of Defendants Axiom Medical Consulting, LLC, Axiom Professionals, LLC, and Axiom Properties, LLC (the Axiom entities). This case is presently set for trial on the merits on October 26, 2015.

On December 12, 2014, Schaefer filed a Verified Application for Temporary Injunction seeking to prohibit DeLitta from representing himself as a Medical Doctor.2 The temporary injunction hearing was held on April 15, 2015 before the Honorable Judge Orlinda Naranjo.

Judge Naranjo entered a Temporary Injunction Order on April 22, 2015.3 In the order, it is written that May 22, 2015 is the date signed and entered, but the correct date is actually April 22, 2015. See CLERK’S

FILE STAMP. 4

DeLitta gave Notice of Appeal from this Temporary Injunction Order on May 11, 2015.5

1 Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Application for Temporary Injunction. C.R. pages 3-114. 2 Plaintiff’s Verified Application for Temporary and Permanent Injunction pages.

C.R. pages 323-359. 3 Temporary Injunction Order. C.R. pages 624-631. 4 Temporary Injunction Order. C.R. pages 624-631. 5 Defendant’s Notice of Accelerated Appeal. C.R. pages 642-645.

Statement regarding Oral Argument Appellant is not requesting oral argument.

Issues Presented

Issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting the Temporary Injunction on April 22, 2015?

Statement of Facts

Schaefer-Appellee and DeLitta-Appellant are each 50% members of the Axiom entities. While Schaefer remains a 50% member, she was terminated as Vice-President by DeLitta on September 23, 2013. DeLitta was President then, and still is.

Schaefer filed suit against DeLitta, the Axiom entities, and another entity that DeLitta owned (Delcom Properties, LLC) on October 9, 2013.6 DeLitta and Schaefer had worked together in the Axiom entities’ business since 2001.7

On December 12, 2014, Schaefer filed her Verified Application for Temporary Injunction from representing himself as a medical doctor.8 Schaefer did not set a hearing on its application for Temporary Injunction until April 15, 2015. At the April 15, 2015 hearing, DeLitta and Schaefer both testified.9 Schaefer presented one other witness, Shane Enoch.10 DeLitta presented two other witnesses Kristi Loritz and Meredith Sloam.11 Exhibits were also offered and admitted into

6 C.R. 3-114. 7 R.R. Volume 2, P65 L25 – P66 L2. 8 C.R. 323-359. 9 R.R. Volume 2, pages 45-80 (DeLitta), pages 84-98 (Schaefer). 10 R.R. Volume 2, pages 23-36. 11 R.R. Volume 2, pages 99-102 (Loritz), pages 104-106 (Sloam).

evidence. 12, 13 On April 22, 2015, the Temporary Injunction Order was entered.14 DeLitta gave Notice of Appeal on May 11, 2015. The Reporter’s Record was filed on May 21, 2015 and the Clerks Record filed on May 20, 2015.

12 Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1-12. R.R. Volume 3. Defendant’s Exhibits 1, 4, 20, 21, and 24. R.R. Volume 3. 13 Affidavits of fact witness attached to the Verified Application for Temporary

Injunction are not evidence, but inadmissible hearsay, and were not admitted. 14 C.R. 624-631.

Summary of the Argument

Schaefer’s Application for a Temporary Injunction to prohibit DeLitta from representing himself as a medical doctor is based on two sections of the Texas Occupational Code and one section of the Texas Penal Code.

The Temporary Injunction should be reversed and rendered as denied and dissolved because Schaefer failed to establish that she has a probable right of recovery. The foregoing code sections, upon which the application for temporary injunction is based, do not create or allow a private civil cause of action. Also, even if the code sections did apply, Schaefer has failed to prove one or more necessary elements to be entitled to any injunctive relief.

Furthermore, Schaefer unreasonable delayed in asserting this claim. Although suit was filed on October 9, 2013,15 Schaefer waited until December 12, 2014, over a year later, to file this Application for Temporary Injunction. And then, she did not set it for hearing until April 15, 2015. The conduct complained of was known for many years. Schaefer’s evidence of the threat of imminent irreparable harm amounts 15 Plaintiff’s Original Petition. C.R. pages 3-114. *15 to only her fear and apprehension of harm to the Axiom entities. This is speculative and not sufficient to support a temporary injunction. Thus, a temporary injunction is not needed to maintain the status quo here.

Argument and Authorities

The trial court abused its discretion in granting the Temporary Injunction on April 22, 2015.

Appellate review of the temporary injunction is limited to whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co. 84 S. W.3d 198, 205 (Tex. 2002). The trial court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law to established facts, or when it concludes that there is a probable right of recovery or a probable, imminent, irreparable harm, and those conclusions are not reasonably supported by the evidence. Butnaru 84 S.W.3d 198, 203, 208; State v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. 526 S. W. 2d 526, 528 (Tex. 1975). The appellate court may review de novo any determinations of law the trial court made in support of the temporary injunction order. Tom James of Dallas vs. Cobb 109 S. W. 3d 377, 883 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2003, no pet.); see Walker v. Packer 827 S.W. 2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending trial on the merits. A temporary injunction is an extraordinary *16 remedy and does not issue as a matter of right. Butnaru 84 S.W. 3d at 203. To obtain a temporary injunction the applicant must plead and prove (i) a cause of action against the defendant (ii) a probable right that it will recover on the relief sought at final trial on the merits and (iii) a probable, imminent and irreparable injury in the interim. Butnaru 84 S.W.3d 198 at 203; Tom James 109 S.W. 3d at 882. A viable cause of action recognized under Texas law for the conduct complained of must be pled. Valenzuela v. Aquino 853 S.W. 2d 512, 513 (Tex. 1993) (because Texas has no cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress trial court could not enjoin).

1. Appellee Schaefer lacks standing and failed to assert a viable cause of action.

The legal basis for Schaefer’s Application for Temporary Injunction to enjoin DeLitta from representing himself as a Medical Doctor (filed on December 12, 2014) is stated to be “a violation of Mr. DeLitta’s obligations under the Physician’s Licensing Act, and a violation of a specific criminal statute”16 – namely, Section 101.204 of the TEX. OCC. CODE, Section 204.302 (3), (4) and (8) of the TEX. OCC.

16Plaintiff’s Verified Application for Temporary and Permanent Injunction. C.R. pages 323-359 at 324.

CODE, and Section 32.52 of the TEX. PENAL CODE.17 (emphasis added). Yet, Schaefer lacks standing,18 as no private civil cause of action exists under the foregoing code provisions.

Section 101.204 of the TEX. OCC. CODE sets forth the available remedies and specifically states “A violation of Section 101.201 does not create a private cause of action.” See Section 101.204 (c). (emphasis added). And Section 204.302 of the TEX. OCC. CODE is predicated on the statement, “The physician assistant board may take action under Section 204.302 against an applicant or license holder who: . . . ,” and then enumerates the prohibited conduct including the conduct referenced in Section 101.201. (emphasis added). These sections simply do not provide for an individual private cause of action. Davis v. Hendrick Autoguard Inc., 294 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (holding that, where it is stated to be the responsibility of executive director of Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and commission to enforce provisions of TEX. OCC. CODE Section 1304.202,

17 Plaintiff’s Verified Application for Temporary and Permanent Injunction. C.R. pages 323-359 at 325 and 326. 18 R.R. Volume 2, P10 L21-P12 L21 ( specifically, P11 L12-14), P16 L 5-20, P118 L13-

25. *18 that language gives only the administrative agencies the power to enforce, and a private right of action is not created).

Similarly, Section 32.52 of the Texas Penal Code does not create a civil cause of action. Generally, the Texas Penal Code does not create a private causes of action. Spurlock v. Johnson, 94 S.W.3d 655, 657 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (citing Aguilar v. Chastain 923 S.W.2d. 740, 745 (Tex. App.–Tyler 1996, writ denied)).

2. Appellee Schaefer failed to demonstrate a probable right of recovery.

Section 32.52 of the Texas Penal Code sets forth the elements of the alleged offense. And Section 32.52 (b) Texas Penal Code requires proof the person knows they have a fraudulent, fictitious or revoked degree.

Here, there is no finding DeLitta’s Ph.D. is fictitious, fraudulent, or has been revoked. The court’s finding is that DeLitta has a Ph.D. from Newport University.19, 20 It is common knowledge that Ph.D.’s are

19C.R. 624-631 (Finding No. 5, “DeLitta has a Ph.D in Psychology from Newport University.”). 20 The Newport University that DeLitta has a Ph.D. from is Newport University of

Newport, California, which later changed its name to Janus University in 2011 (R.R. Volume 3, Defendant’s Exhibit 1; DeLitta testimony, R.R. P61, L14 – P63, L3). It is not the Newport University of Hawaii and Lebanon referred to by Schaefer (R.R. Volume 3, Defendant’s Exhibit 24). Neither Newport University of Newport,

routinely referred to, or refer to themselves, as Dr. or Doctor, as Schaefer’s witness conceded.21 The degree he obtained is a Doctorate. 22 And DeLitta admits he was not a medical doctor, M.D.

Section 32.52 (2) (A) also requires proof that the person “uses the degree or claims to hold the degree in a written or oral advertisement or other promotion of a business as a necessary element of the offense.” (emphasis added).

But DeLitta never used the title Medical Doctor or M.D., either verbally or in any written advertisement or other promotion of the business. Axiom business advertisements, promotional material, and all e-mails or correspondence admitted into evidence refer only to DeLitta, Dr. DeLitta, or Mike DeLitta Ph.D., P.A.23 None state that DeLitta is a medical doctor or M.D.

As background, DeLitta, in addition to earning his Ph.D., is a licensed physician’s assistant with a physician’s assistant degree from UCLA Medical School.24 And there is no dispute that DeLitta is a

California nor Janus are listed in Defendant’s Exhibit 24 (R.R. Volume 3) as being unauthorized degrees for use in the State of Texas. 21 R.R. Volume 2, P40 L3-7. 22 Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6. R.R. Volume 3. 23 Defendant’s Exhibits 1, 2, 3 4, 5, and 21, R.R. Volume 3; R.R. Volume 2, P53 L3-

L21. 24 DeLitta testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P60 L19-L25.

properly licensed and degreed physician’s assistant. DeLitta was formerly the Medical Director at Atlantic Richfield Corp. (ARCO) based in California.25 At Axiom Medical Consulting, DeLitta has a supervising physician — Nora Hart who is a medical doctor.26 In sum, DeLitta is the CEO and President of the Axiom entities – with Ph.D. and P.A. degrees, but he is not a medical doctor.

The only witness called by Schaefer (other than herself) was Shane Enoch, a former employee that had been terminated by Axiom.27 He worked from his home in Oklahoma as a nurse. While he said he subjectively thought DeLitta was a medical doctor, he conceded that he was never told that, nor was he ever instructed to call DeLitta a Medical Doctor or M.D.28 Appellant’s witnesses – Kristie Loritz, a nursing supervisor, and Meredith Sloam, a long-time office employee – both testified that DeLitta (i) never told them to tell employees or customers

25 DeLitta testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P59 L18-L24. 26 DeLitta testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P61 L5-L10. 27 Enoch testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P36 L19-L21. 28 Enoch testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P36 L14-L18.

that he was a medical doctor and (ii) never referred to himself as such.29 Both knew that he was not a medical doctor.30

There was a credit card that Schaefer referenced that has MD after DeLitta’s name. But it is a personal credit card not regularly used in the business.31 On the stand, DeLitta explained that this was a mistake by the issuing bank, as he had checked a box on the application that said doctor.32 This is supported by the fact that DeLitta’s other credit cards do not have that designation.33 The vanity license plate that Schaefer referenced – “occ doc” – is on DeLitta’s wife’s personal car. 34

In sum, no evidence was presented by Schaefer (i) that either was used in any advertisement or other promotion of the business or (ii) of any damage or potential damage to the Axiom entities.

3. There is no probable, imminent threat of irreparable harm. Appellee Schaefer unreasonable delayed in asserting this request. And a temporary injunction is not necessary to maintain the status quo here.

29 Loritz testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P101 L17-L23. Sloam testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P106 L8-L14. 30 Loritz testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P101 L24-P102 L3. Sloam testimony R.R.

Volume 2 P106 L15-L17. 31 DeLitta testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P62 L12-L15. 32 DeLitta testimony. R.R Volume 2, P63 L8-L16. 33 Defendant’s Exhibit 20. R.R. Volume 3. 34 DeLitta testimony. R.R. Volume 2, P55 L11-P56 L2.

Although their lawsuit was filed on October 9, 2013, Schaefer did not file this Application for Temporary Injunction until December 12, 2014 and did not set it for a hearing until April 15, 2015. Schaefer was aware of the alleged facts giving rise to her complaint for many years – she’s worked at Axiom since 200135 and abandoned the issue in 2010. 36 In fact, back on October 17, 2013, one of her advisors – Carol Stryker – suggested that raising this precise issue may be a way to apply pressure in the litigation (about 18 months before the trial court’s hearing on the issue).37 Such a long delay in bringing the issue before the trial court shows by itself that there is no imminent threat of irreparable harm here. Without imminence and irreparability, injunctive relief should not have been granted.

Further, Schaefer has presented no evidence that there is any imminent threat or any irreparable harm. Schaefer’s testimony is that she has a fear or apprehension of the possibility of an injury.38 Fear and apprehension of injury is speculative and not sufficient to support a temporary injunction. Fox v. Tropical Warehouse, Inc. 121 S.W.3d 853,

35 R.R. Volume 2, P65 L25 – P66 L2. 36 Defendant’s Exhibit 21 (November 18, 2010 Emails to/from Schaefer and Delitta). R.R. Volume 3. 37 Defendant’s Exhibit 23. R.R. Volume 3. 38 Schaefer testimony. R.R. Volume 2, P91 L21 – P92 L7.

861 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); Jordan v. Landry’s Seafood Rest., Inc., 89 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (op on reh’g); Jones v. Jefferson Cty. 15 S.W. 3d. 206, 213 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. denied); see Matrix Network, Inc. v. Ginn 211 S.W.3d 944, 947-48 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.); EMSL Analytical Inc. v. Younker 154 S.W. 3d 693, 697 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

The delay, which shows acquiescence and works as a waiver, and lack of any evidence of harm here both show that injunctive relief was granted in error. Moreover, the injunctive relief granted interrupts, rather than maintains, the status quo. As it stands, defendant DeLitta, although having a Ph.D., cannot use the title he earned, even though there is no credible evidence in the record that he held himself out as a medical doctor.

Conclusion

Appellee Schaefer failed to both plead and prove a viable cause of action. Assuming a private cause of action even existed under the cited code provisions, Schaefer failed to prove all the necessary elements. Schaefer also failed to demonstrate an imminent threat of irreparable harm, or need to maintain the status quo.

Prayer

Appellant requests that the April 22, 2015 Temporary Injunction Order be reversed and rendered as denied and dissolved.

Respectfully submitted,

DRUCKER | HOPKINS LLP /s/ Douglas R. Drucker Douglas R. Drucker Texas Bar No. 06136100 Kirby D. Hopkins Texas Bar No. 24034488 21 Waterway Avenue, Suite 300 The Woodlands, Texas 77380 281.362.2863 (phone) 855.558.1745 (fax) drucker@druckerhopkins.com (email) hopkins@druckerhopkins.com (email) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT MICHAEL J. DELITTA

Certificate of Compliance

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4, the undersigned certifies that the number of words in this computergenerated document (according to the Word program’s word count function)—excluding the captions, identity of parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented, signature, proof of service, certification, certificate of compliance, and appendix—is 2,005 (text) and 385 (footnotes), for a total of 2,385.

Date: June 12, 2015 /s/ Douglas R. Drucker Douglas R. Drucker

Certificate of Service

Per Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6 and 9.5, I certify that I have served this document on all other parties on June 12, 2015 as follows:

Howard F. Carter via Electronic-filing The Carter Law Firm 14185 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1275 Dallas, Texas 75254 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF NANCY SHAEFER

Donald Taylor via Electronic-filing Taylor Dunham & Rodriguez, LLP 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1050 Austin, Texas 78701 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF NANCY SHAEFER

Lisa Bowlin Hobbs via Electronic-filing Kurt Kuhn Kuhn Hobbs PLLC 3307 Northland Drive, Suite 310 Austin, Texas 78731 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF NANCY SCHAEFER

Eric J. Taube via Electronic-filing Hohmann, Taube & Summers LLP 100 Congress Avenue 18th Floor Austin, Texas 78701 COUNSEL FOR PROVISIONAL MEMBER JEFF COMPTON OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS, AND OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

Date: June 12, 2015 /s/ Douglas R. Drucker Douglas R. Drucker

Appendix

The following constitutes the Appendix as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1(k):

Appendix A: Temporary Injunction Order signed by Judge Orlinda Naranjo Appendix B: TEX. OCC. CODE Section 204.302

TEX. OCC. CODE Section 101.204

TEX. OCC. CODE Section 1304.202

TEX. PENAL CODE Section 32.52

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 1