After case against Vernon dropped, three who claim theft confront county attorney

Despite the triple misdemeanor case against Van Vernon having been dismissed, the three former Granbury School Board candidates who say he stole their campaign signs showed up Friday morning at the Ralph H. Walton Jr. Justice Center anyway.

Rather than going into the justice of the peace courtroom, where a pre-trial hearing for Vernon was to have taken place, Barbara Townsend, Billy Wimberly, and Paula McDonald instead marched into the county attorney’s office across the hall, where they demanded answers from County Attorney Matt Mills.

Mills agreed to meet with the group, which included two other people and a Hood County News reporter who had been asked to be present. Mills spent almost an hour explaining his reasons for enlisting Erath County District Attorney Alan Nash to serve as a visiting prosecutor and why he viewed the case as problematic, an opinion that Nash apparently shared.

“There are major problems proving (the case) beyond a reasonable doubt before a judge or jury,” Mills told the group.

Vernon pleaded not guilty to the three Class C misdemeanor theft charges and retained an attorney to represent him.

No judge or jury will be able to determine for themselves whether a crime occurred since Nash filed a motion to dismiss the case on Thursday, Precinct 1 Justice of the Peace Roger “Cotton” Howell signed it, and Mills said he will not reconsider it for prosecution.

A Sheriff’s Office report of the incident states an investigator’s belief that a crime did occur.

McDonald indicated that she might contact the Texas Rangers and pursue justice civilly through a lawsuit.

All three alleged victims said they were not contacted when Mills made the decision to enlist an outside prosecutor, nor were they notified of the initial court date, the cancellation of that court date, the rescheduled court date, or the motion to dismiss. McDonald said they only learned of those developments through the Hood County News.

Mills expressed regret that Nash did not contact the three after taking responsibility for the case.

In his explanation of why the case was problematic, Mills noted that there is a “very high bar” for criminal cases and said that “the number one responding deputy” found that no criminal charges could be pursued because Vernon had permission from the caretaker of the property to remove the signs. He also stated that a deputy’s retrieval of the signs from Vernon’s home the following day made it difficult to prove theft because Vernon had not had adequate time to return the signs if his intention had not been to steal them.

However, those claims seem to be refuted by the Sheriff’s Office report. The report also backs up McDonald’s claim that the property owner had given permission for the signs to be placed on his property.

At the start of the meeting, Mills indicated that he had not wanted to touch the case because it was “inherently political,” occurring during an election season. However, he noted that he has prosecuted cases in the past that involved current or former elected officials.

One of those cases involved Republican Party Chair Steve Biggers, who was court ordered to comply with the county’s septic regulations. That case, Mills said, brought threats to run against him, Mills, in the next election.

“The judge recused himself, so I’m left holding the bag,” he said, referring to 355th District Judge Bryan Bufkin. Retired 355th District Judge Ralph Walton presided over that matter.

Mills also prosecuted former Granbury City Council member Gary Couch on a Boating While Intoxicated charge. When Couch was found not guilty, Mills said he had “never disagreed more strenuously with a verdict” and that he was “sorry if I let the Granbury PD down.”

At Friday’s meeting, Mills told the group, “Everything is toxic here. Everything is nasty.”

He stated that he views Nash as a fair, ethical, and tough prosecutor and that enlisting his help with the case was “as unbiased as I can be.”

None of that was consolation to Townsend, Wimberly, and McDonald, who view themselves as having been victimized twice, once by Vernon, and then by the justice system.

EYEWITNESSES

On the night of Oct. 5 last year, Brenton Montgomery had just picked up his 11-year-old son from Wednesday night church activities at Lakeside Baptist Church and was driving down Contrary Road when he and his son observed a white male at the corner of Contrary Creek Road and Glen Rose Highway removing political signs from T-posts. Montgomery yelled at the man asking why he was taking the signs. The man did not respond.

This is according to the report by the Sheriff’s Office, which backs up statements made by McDonald to the HCN shortly after the incident occurred.

Montgomery notified McDonald, who at that time was a School Board member seeking re-election. McDonald told fellow trustee Courtney Gore about the situation. Gore said that she knew someone who drove a maroon truck like the one described by Montgomery. She sent McDonald a photo of Van Vernon. McDonald then showed the photo to Montgomery, who identified Vernon as the man he saw removing the signs.

McDonald, Townsend, and Wimberly filed complaints with the Sheriff’s Office, which kicked off the investigation.

A deputy went to Vernon’s home, where he recovered the signs. The SO sent the case to Mills for prosecution.

Instead of filing a single Class B misdemeanor charge, which carries the possibility of 180 days in county jail, Mills opted for three smaller Class C misdemeanor charges. That level of crime is punishable by a fine of up to $500 but does not carry the possibility of jail time.

REQUEST TO DISMISS

Immediately after the incident, McDonald told the HCN that the property owner, Steve Bumpass, did not desire to be involved in the matter or to have his name in the newspaper.

The HCN has not named him up to this point, but his identity is revealed in the SO report. Also, to the apparent surprise of the three former candidates, Mills stated during Friday’s meeting that “Bumpass called me and said, hey, I want you to dismiss the case.”

Later that day, Mills forwarded to the HCN an email he had sent to Nash on Jan. 13 thanking him for taking the case and forwarding him the SO reports. The email to Nash contained this paragraph: “Finally, I'm not sure if this is Brady or not, but the owner of the land called me not long after this blew up, and he said he wanted the case to go away (be declined). But since he's really not the victim, I'm not sure if his opinion matters that much. If I can help you with anything else, please let me know.”

In his motion to dismiss, filed 24 hours before the scheduled pre-trial hearing, Nash stated: “Having reviewed and considered the reliable and pertinent evidence compiled in these matters, the undersigned District Attorney is of the opinion that probable cause justified and supports the citations issued by law enforcement in these matters. Nonetheless, there are conflicts as to apparent and actual authority for permission granted to both the victim sign owners and the defendant for placement of political signs on the relevant properties. As such the State is not in a position to prove the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.”

For Townsend, Wimberly, and McDonald, the case is clear-cut. On Thursday, after the HCN notified McDonald that Nash had filed a motion to dismiss, McDonald said of Vernon, “He was caught red-handed.”

Howell, Precinct 1 JP, told the HCN late Thursday afternoon that he had signed the motion. He indicated that there was no reason not to do so since the prosecutor did not want to proceed with the case.

‘MURKY’ AND ‘GRAY’

The two prosecutors, Nash and Mills, seem to view the case differently than the Sheriff’s Office.

“Once they started making phone calls to Mr. Gilbert, that’s when things got murky,” said Mills, referring to property “caretaker” James Richard Gilbert who gave Vernon permission to remove the signs.

Gilbert never had the authority to do so.

The SO report states that Gilbert acknowledged that he had not discussed the matter with the landowner, Bumpass, and also acknowledged that he did not know whether Bumpass had previously given permission for the placement of the signs.

The report also states that Vernon denied having been confronted about his removal of the signs and says he expressed that he “did not intend to call the owners.”

The report concluded the following:

“After reviewing the original case and seeing what information the deputies had/were provided/were able to obtain, it was determined there was no offense, because deputies believed James had authority to grant Van the consent to remove the signs. However, after conducting the follow up investigation and being able to speak with the property owner, Stephen, which deputies had not been able to, it was determined that James did not have the authority to grant consent for the signs to be removed. Upon further follow up investigation, it is believed that Van was depriving the owners of their property for the following reasons:

• Not returning the signs to the owners, which he stated he had no plan to call them.
• He planned to place them by the dumpster at the U-Haul business for the owners to obtain them, which was a location over 2000 feet away from where they had been taken from and a place the owners of the signs would not have gone to look for them since the owners never spoke with James and Van knew this.
• He had plenty of time to take the signs to the U-Haul business, after taking them, but never did.

The report continues, “Based on the above information, it is believed that Paula, Barbara and William did have permission to post their signs by the property owner, James did not have the authority to provide permission for the signs to be removed from the property resulting in Van not having the authority/right to remove the signs.

“Based on this, it is believed that Van did commit the offense of theft by unlawfully obtaining property with intent to deprive the owner.”

SERIOUS PRECEDENT?

The conversation around Mills’ conference table included the need to stand up to political bullies and the fact that Townsend, Wimberly, and McDonald feel that Mills, an elected official official paid by taxpayers to uphold justice, did not do so in their case.

Townsend, herself an elected public servant as a member of the Granbury School Board, told Mills that elected officials must not “let their bullying keep us from doing what’s right.”

Wimberly said, “How many other signs has that group taken that nobody even knows about?”

McDonald said she fears that the case’s dismissal “is setting a serious precedent.”

Mills stood by his assertion that he had been well intentioned and that there were problems with the case.

“I agree that Van could have done things a lot better than he did,” he said. “That’s a bad look.”