Bobby Young v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Bobby Young v. State

DecidedAugust 11, 1993

Docket03-92-00528-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Bobby Young v. State (Bobby Young v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bobby Young v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN

NO. 3-92-528-CR

BOBBY YOUNG,

APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0923539, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

After hearing appellant's plea of guilty and judicial confession, the district court found him guilty of forgery. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21 (West 1989 & Supp. 1993). Appellant also pleaded true to two previous felony convictions and the court assessed punishment, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, at imprisonment for twelve years.

In his only point of error, appellant contends the court erred by overruling his motion to quash the indictment. We overrule this point for several reasons. First, the notice of appeal failed to preserve the alleged error. Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1); Berger v. State, 780 S.W.2d 321 (Tex. App.--Austin 1989, no pet.). Second, the alleged defect in the indictment of which appellant now complains was not brought to the attention of the district court in either the motion to quash or at the hearing held thereon. Tex. R. App. P. 52(a). Third, appellant's brief makes no effort to demonstrate that the alleged defect in the indictment hindered his ability to prepare a defense. Adams v. State, 707 S.W.2d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). We note in this connection that defense counsel acknowledged at the hearing below that the prosecutor had opened his file to the defense. Finally, appellant's complaint on appeal is patently without merit. Appellant argues that "the placement of the term `which purported to be the act of [the complainant]' creates an ambiguity as to which portion of the indictment it modifies." We find no such ambiguity in the indictment, which alleges that appellant "knowingly possess[ed] a writing that had been made so that it purported to be the act of [the complainant]."

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Jones]

Affirmed

Filed: August 11, 1993

[Do Not Publish]

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN

NO. 3-92-528-CR

BOBBY YOUNG,

APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0923539, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

After hearing appellant's plea of guilty and judicial confession, the district court found him guilty of forgery. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21 (West 1989 & Supp. 1993). Appellant also pleaded true to two previous felony convictions and the court assessed punishment, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, at imprisonment for twelve years.

In his only point of error, appellant contends the court erred by overruling his motion to quash the indictment. We overrule this point for several reasons. First, the notice of appeal failed to preserve the alleged error. Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1); Berger v. State, 780 S.W.2d 321 (Tex. App.--Austin 1989, no pet.). Second, the alleged defect in the indictment of which appellant now complains was not brought to the attention of the district court in either the motion to quash or at the hearing held thereon. Tex. R. App. P. 52(a). Third, appellant's brief makes no effort to demonstrate that the alleged defect in the indictment hindered his ability to prepare a defense. Adams v. State, 707 S.W.2d 900, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). We note in this connection that defense counsel acknowledged at the hearing below that the prosecutor had opened his file to the defense. Finally, appellant's complaint on appeal is patently without merit. Appellant argues that "the placement of the term `which purported to be the act of [the complainant]' creates an ambiguity as to which portion of the indictment it modifies." We find no such ambiguity in the indictment, which alleges that appellant "knowingly possess[ed] a writing that had been made so that it purported to be the act of [the complainant]."

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Jones]

Affirmed

Filed: August 11, 1993

[Do Not Publish]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bobby Young v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobby-young-v-state-texapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack