1-1977 Oldsmobile Vin No. 3m57r7r108795 v. State

Texas Supreme Court

1-1977 Oldsmobile Vin No. 3m57r7r108795 v. State

715 S.W.2d 641, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 566, 1986 Tex. LEXIS 577

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 10, 1986

DocketNo. C-4991

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 715 S.W.2d 641 (1-1977 Oldsmobile Vin No. 3m57r7r108795 v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1-1977 Oldsmobile Vin No. 3m57r7r108795 v. State, 715 S.W.2d 641, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 566, 1986 Tex. LEXIS 577 (Tex. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an automobile forfeiture. The issue is whether the court of appeals properly reversed the trial court’s judgment denying forfeiture under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.

The trial court received a stipulation that the amount of marihuana and amphetamine involved was a misdemeanor amount. The Tarrant County District Attorney's office sought forfeiture of a brown leather bag, the marihuana, the amphetamine, and title to the 1977 Oldsmobile as being used in violation of the Texas Controlled Substances Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4476-15 § 5.03. The trial court rendered judgment allowing forfeiture of the leather bag, marihuana, amphetamine, but not the 1977 Oldsmobile. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment to include forfeiture of the vehicle. 700 S.W.2d 33.

This court recently construed section 5.03 as it existed at the time of this offense [642]*642in One 1980 Pontiac, VIN # 2D19SAP21357 et ah, v. State of Texas, 707 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.1986). In One 1980 Pontiac we held that “the legislature intended the forfeiture provisions to be used only when an aggravated offense.is committed and when the offense is one involving some aspect of a drug transaction.” ONE 1980 Pontiac at 883.

We grant writ of error and pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 183(b) without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an automobile forfeiture. The issue is whether the court of appeals properly reversed the trial court’s judgment denying forfeiture under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.

The trial court received a stipulation that the amount of marihuana and amphetamine involved was a misdemeanor amount. The Tarrant County District Attorney's office sought forfeiture of a brown leather bag, the marihuana, the amphetamine, and title to the 1977 Oldsmobile as being used in violation of the Texas Controlled Substances Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4476-15 § 5.03. The trial court rendered judgment allowing forfeiture of the leather bag, marihuana, amphetamine, but not the 1977 Oldsmobile. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment to include forfeiture of the vehicle. 700 S.W.2d 33.

This court recently construed section 5.03 as it existed at the time of this offense [642]*642in One 1980 Pontiac, VIN # 2D19SAP21357 et ah, v. State of Texas, 707 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.1986). In One 1980 Pontiac we held that “the legislature intended the forfeiture provisions to be used only when an aggravated offense.is committed and when the offense is one involving some aspect of a drug transaction.” ONE 1980 Pontiac at 883.

We grant writ of error and pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 183(b) without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

715 S.W.2d 641, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 566, 1986 Tex. LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1-1977-oldsmobile-vin-no-3m57r7r108795-v-state-tex-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack