DePaul v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

DePaul v. State

624 S.W.2d 709, 1981 Tex. App. LEXIS 4275

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 29, 1981

DocketNo. B14-81-008-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 624 S.W.2d 709 (DePaul 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

DePaul v. State, 624 S.W.2d 709, 1981 Tex. App. LEXIS 4275 (Tex. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

MURPHY, Justice.

Appellant appeals from a jury conviction for the misdemeanor offense of solicitation of prostitution on August 5, 1979. At issue is whether the trial court erred in overruling a pre-trial motion to quash the information. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant’s ground of error asserts that the trial court erroneously overruled her pre-trial motion to quash the information because the information was overbroad, lacked particulars of the offense for which she had been charged and rendered appellant unable to prepare a defense. Prior to trial, appellant orally moved the court to quash the information, but submitted no written motion. Article 27.10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires all motions to set aside an indictment or information to be in writing. Tex.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. art. 27.10 (Vernon 1975). An oral motion does not preserve error for review. Faulks v. State, 528 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). We, therefore, affirm the judgment.

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

MURPHY, Justice.

Appellant appeals from a jury conviction for the misdemeanor offense of solicitation of prostitution on August 5, 1979. At issue is whether the trial court erred in overruling a pre-trial motion to quash the information. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant’s ground of error asserts that the trial court erroneously overruled her pre-trial motion to quash the information because the information was overbroad, lacked particulars of the offense for which she had been charged and rendered appellant unable to prepare a defense. Prior to trial, appellant orally moved the court to quash the information, but submitted no written motion. Article 27.10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires all motions to set aside an indictment or information to be in writing. Tex.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. art. 27.10 (Vernon 1975). An oral motion does not preserve error for review. Faulks v. State, 528 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). We, therefore, affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 S.W.2d 709, 1981 Tex. App. LEXIS 4275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/depaul-v-state-texapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack