Hill v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Hill v. State

750 S.W.2d 2, 1988 WL 54390

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 2, 1988

Docket2-87-028-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 750 S.W.2d 2 (Hill 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

Hill v. State, 750 S.W.2d 2, 1988 WL 54390 (Tex. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

HILL, Justice.

Danny Boy Hill appeals his conviction by a jury of the offense of forgery. The jury, finding that Hill had committed two prior felonies, assessed his punishment at sixty years in the Texas Department of Corrections. In his sole point of error, Hill contends that the indictment is fundamentally defective for failure to charge the offense of forgery, since it fails to allege that “the act was of another who did not authorize the act,” as required by section 32.21 of the Penal Code.

We affirm, because we find that Hill waived his right to raise an objection of such an error in the indictment on appeal since this indictment was returned after December 1, 1985, and Hill presented no pre-trial objection to the indictment. TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 1.14 (Vernon Supp.1988). Also, see Shaw v. State, 728 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.). All authorities cited by Hill predate December 1,1985, the effective date of article 1.14(b). We overrule Hill’s sole point of error.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

HILL, Justice.

Danny Boy Hill appeals his conviction by a jury of the offense of forgery. The jury, finding that Hill had committed two prior felonies, assessed his punishment at sixty years in the Texas Department of Corrections. In his sole point of error, Hill contends that the indictment is fundamentally defective for failure to charge the offense of forgery, since it fails to allege that “the act was of another who did not authorize the act,” as required by section 32.21 of the Penal Code.

We affirm, because we find that Hill waived his right to raise an objection of such an error in the indictment on appeal since this indictment was returned after December 1, 1985, and Hill presented no pre-trial objection to the indictment. TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 1.14 (Vernon Supp.1988). Also, see Shaw v. State, 728 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.). All authorities cited by Hill predate December 1,1985, the effective date of article 1.14(b). We overrule Hill’s sole point of error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

750 S.W.2d 2, 1988 WL 54390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-texapp-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack