# Satterwhite v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · September 23, 1998 · 979 S.W.2d 626

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769116

## Case

- **Full name:** William SATTERWHITE, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** September 23, 1998
- **Citations:** 979 S.W.2d 626; 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 114; 1998 WL 648749
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mansfield
- **Judges:** McCormick, Price, Mansfield, Keller, Holland, Womack, Baird, Overstreet, Meyers
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769116

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding record reflected appellant intended to obtain economic benefit for himself by representing client
- affirming felony conviction under § 38.122 of an attorney suspended from practice for failing to timely pay his annual bar dues

## Opinion text

MANSFIELD, Judge,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court. It is clear from the record that appellant, knowingly and intentionally, falsely held himself out as a lawyer in violation of Texas Penal Code *630 § 38.122. The State met its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, appellant continued to practice law despite having knowledge that he was not in good standing with the State Bar of Texas for failure to pay his dues.
Concern has been expressed that our holding in this case might lead to criminal liability for, potentially, thousands of attorneys who inadvertently send their bar dues in a few days late, whose checks are “lost in the mail” or who, accidently, send a cheek for the wrong amount. Another situation, quite common, is where the check is returned for insufficient funds when the remitter, in good faith, believed there were sufficient funds in his account to cover the check. I believe this concern is misplaced. The State must prove intentional, knowing or reckless conduct on the part of the accused to obtain a conviction under Texas Penal Code § 38.122; such would rarely be provable in the instances cited in the two previous sentences. In any event, anyone indicted under section 38.122, where such circumstances existed, would have available the defense of mistake of fact under Texas Penal Code § 8.02.
With these comments, I join the opinion of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769116. Public record. Not legal advice.