Holly v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Holly v. State

460 S.W.2d 136, 1970 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1224

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 2, 1970

DocketNo. 43588

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 460 S.W.2d 136 (Holly 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

Holly v. State, 460 S.W.2d 136, 1970 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1224 (Tex. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.00.

Able State’s Attorney points the Court’s attention to the failure of the record to reflect a signature on the complaint and the failure of the complaint and information to contain the signature of the county attorney or an assistant county attorney of Lubbock County, Texas. Our attention is directed to the opinion of this Court in Carter v. State, 398 S.W.2d 290. Article 21.22, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. provides that: “No information shall be presented until affidavit has been made by some credible person charging the defendant with an offense. The affidavit shall be filed with the information. It may be sworn to before the district or county attorney who, for that purpose, shall have the power to administer the oath, or it may be made before any officer authorized by law to administer oaths.”

It therefore appears from the record that the conviction is void and should be reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.

It is so ordered.

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

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.00.

Able State’s Attorney points the Court’s attention to the failure of the record to reflect a signature on the complaint and the failure of the complaint and information to contain the signature of the county attorney or an assistant county attorney of Lubbock County, Texas. Our attention is directed to the opinion of this Court in Carter v. State, 398 S.W.2d 290. Article 21.22, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. provides that: “No information shall be presented until affidavit has been made by some credible person charging the defendant with an offense. The affidavit shall be filed with the information. It may be sworn to before the district or county attorney who, for that purpose, shall have the power to administer the oath, or it may be made before any officer authorized by law to administer oaths.”

It therefore appears from the record that the conviction is void and should be reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 S.W.2d 136, 1970 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holly-v-state-texcrimapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack