Cathey v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Cathey v. State

402 S.W.2d 746

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 13, 1966

DocketNo. 39234

StatusPublished

This text of 402 S.W.2d 746 (Cathey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cathey v. State, 402 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of driving while his license was suspended, and his punishment was assessed at 270 days in jail and a fine of $750.00.

A discussion of the facts is not necessary. Suffice it to say that appellant was shown to have operated a motor vehicle on a public street on February 9, 1965. For proof that appellant’s privilege to drive was suspended on that date, the State relied upon the same chain of suspensions relied upon in the prosecution of this same appellant in Cathy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 402 S.W.2d 743, opinion delivered this date. In that case, this Court found that appellant’s license to drive had expired on September 23, 1960, at a time when it was not validly suspended, and appellant had no license — either suspended or unencumbered —on the date of the alleged offense. Conviction in that cause was therefore reversed because the State had failed to prove one of the elements of the offense, i. e., that appellant’s privilege to drive was suspended at the time of the alleged offense.

Our decision in Cathy, supra, controls our disposition of this case. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted; our prior opinion affirming the conviction is withdrawn, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of driving while his license was suspended, and his punishment was assessed at 270 days in jail and a fine of $750.00.

A discussion of the facts is not necessary. Suffice it to say that appellant was shown to have operated a motor vehicle on a public street on February 9, 1965. For proof that appellant’s privilege to drive was suspended on that date, the State relied upon the same chain of suspensions relied upon in the prosecution of this same appellant in Cathy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 402 S.W.2d 743, opinion delivered this date. In that case, this Court found that appellant’s license to drive had expired on September 23, 1960, at a time when it was not validly suspended, and appellant had no license — either suspended or unencumbered —on the date of the alleged offense. Conviction in that cause was therefore reversed because the State had failed to prove one of the elements of the offense, i. e., that appellant’s privilege to drive was suspended at the time of the alleged offense.

Our decision in Cathy, supra, controls our disposition of this case. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted; our prior opinion affirming the conviction is withdrawn, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 S.W.2d 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cathey-v-state-texcrimapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack