Christopher v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Christopher v. State

479 S.W.2d 281, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2138

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 3, 1972

DocketNo. 44832

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 479 S.W.2d 281 (Christopher 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

Christopher v. State, 479 S.W.2d 281, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2138 (Tex. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery by assault; the punishment, fifteen (IS) years.

Appellant’s two grounds of error relate to a variance in the spelling of his surname. In the indictment it is spelled “Chrisiopher,” while in the charge on guilt and the verdict thereon spelled it “Chrisiorpher.” The charge on punishment spelled it “Chrisiorpherthe verdict recited “Christro/>her.” The sentence spells it “Chrisiopher” as it appears in the indictment, but in reciting the jury’s verdicts, quoted the spelling of appellant’s name as it appeared in each verdict. Appellant signed the pauper’s oath requesting the record to be prepared for appeal by signing his surname as “Chrisiopher.” The notice of completion of the record addressed to appellant’s counsel on appeal spells his surname “Chrisiopher.”

Appellant made no objection to the variations in spelling of his name as they appeared. The question of the error in spelling was raised for the first time in the appellate brief.

We have concluded that appellant could not have been misled by this error in spelling. We find the names to be idem sonans. Raseley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 899; Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 828, and Hale v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 482, 300 S.W.2d 75. See also Tex.Dig., Names,

The judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery by assault; the punishment, fifteen (IS) years.

Appellant’s two grounds of error relate to a variance in the spelling of his surname. In the indictment it is spelled “Chrisiopher,” while in the charge on guilt and the verdict thereon spelled it “Chrisiorpher.” The charge on punishment spelled it “Chrisiorpherthe verdict recited “Christro/>her.” The sentence spells it “Chrisiopher” as it appears in the indictment, but in reciting the jury’s verdicts, quoted the spelling of appellant’s name as it appeared in each verdict. Appellant signed the pauper’s oath requesting the record to be prepared for appeal by signing his surname as “Chrisiopher.” The notice of completion of the record addressed to appellant’s counsel on appeal spells his surname “Chrisiopher.”

Appellant made no objection to the variations in spelling of his name as they appeared. The question of the error in spelling was raised for the first time in the appellate brief.

We have concluded that appellant could not have been misled by this error in spelling. We find the names to be idem sonans. Raseley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 899; Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 828, and Hale v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 482, 300 S.W.2d 75. See also Tex.Dig., Names,

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 S.W.2d 281, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-v-state-texcrimapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack