Florence v. State
This text of 273 S.W.2d 631 (Florence 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.
Opinions
The conviction is for aggravated assault with a motor vehicle; the punishment, one year in jail.
Appellant complains of the overruling of his motion to quash the information. The information alleged that appellant ‘“did drive and operate a motor vehicle, to-wit: an auto - obile,” while the complaint alleged that he drove and operated “a motor vehicle, to-wit: an autmobile.”
Bad spelling will not vitiate the complaint or information if the sense is not affected and the meaning cannot be mistaken. Graham v. State, 119 Texas Cr. Rep. 14, 46 S.W. 2d 709; Murphey v. State, 109 Texas Cr. Rep. 524, 5 S.W. 2d 988.
The complaint and information each show the misspelling of the word automobile, but it clearly appears that it was meant in each instance to allege that the motor vehicle was an automobile. No variance is therefore shown.
There is no statement of facts, in the absence of which the remaining bill cannot be appraised.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
273 S.W.2d 631, 160 Tex. Crim. 591, 1954 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florence-v-state-texcrimapp-1954.