Franks v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Franks v. State

532 S.W.2d 631

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 11, 1976

DocketNo. 50537

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 532 S.W.2d 631 (Franks 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

Franks v. State, 532 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

ONION, Presiding Judge.

This is a conviction for robbery by assault with a firearm, wherein punishment, enhanced under Article 62, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., 1925, was assessed at life, was affirmed in a per curiam opinion on November 19, 1975. On consideration of appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for rehearing the court agreed sua sponte that the motion should be granted and rehearing had in light of the indictment.

The indictment in the instant case contains the same fundamental defect as that found in Lucero v. State, 502 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), in that it fails to allege “to whom the property allegedly taken belonged.” See also Bouie v. State, 528 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); French v. State, 531 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Cr.App., delivered November 5, 1975); Arline v. State, 529 S.W.2d 73 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Ainsworth v. State, 531 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Cr.App., delivered November 5, 1975); Batro v. State, 531 S.W.2d 614 (Tex.Cr.App., delivered November 5, 1975).

The appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted, the order of affirmance is withdrawn, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.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

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

ONION, Presiding Judge.

This is a conviction for robbery by assault with a firearm, wherein punishment, enhanced under Article 62, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., 1925, was assessed at life, was affirmed in a per curiam opinion on November 19, 1975. On consideration of appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for rehearing the court agreed sua sponte that the motion should be granted and rehearing had in light of the indictment.

The indictment in the instant case contains the same fundamental defect as that found in Lucero v. State, 502 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), in that it fails to allege “to whom the property allegedly taken belonged.” See also Bouie v. State, 528 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); French v. State, 531 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Cr.App., delivered November 5, 1975); Arline v. State, 529 S.W.2d 73 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Ainsworth v. State, 531 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Cr.App., delivered November 5, 1975); Batro v. State, 531 S.W.2d 614 (Tex.Cr.App., delivered November 5, 1975).

The appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted, the order of affirmance is withdrawn, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 S.W.2d 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franks-v-state-texcrimapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack