Paul Allgyer v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Paul Allgyer v. State

DecidedJune 26, 1997

Docket03-96-00448-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Paul Allgyer v. State (Paul Allgyer 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

Paul Allgyer v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-96-00448-CR Paul Allgyer, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUNTY

NO. 42,941, HONORABLE HOWARD S. WARNER, II, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Paul Allgyer appeals from his conviction as a second offender for driving a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). The court assessed appellant's punishment at confinement in the county jail for two years probated and a fine of $750.00. We will affirm.

The only issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion to quash the information. In his motion to quash, appellant alleged the information should be quashed because it failed to allege a culpable mental state. Appellant urged at trial, and contends on appeal, that the Penal Code requires the State in its information in driving while intoxicated prosecutions to allege a culpable mental state. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.02(b) (West 1994). Although appellant makes cogent arguments in his brief, precedent is squarely against him. Contentions and arguments that are the same as those made by appellant have been considered and rejected in five recent opinions by four courts of appeals, including this Court. See Sanders v. State, 936 S.W.2d 436 (Tex. App.--Austin 1996, pet. ref'd); Aguirre v. State, 928 S.W.2d 759 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no pet.); State v. Sanchez, 925 S.W.2d 371 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd); Chunn v. State, 923 S.W.2d 728 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd); Reed v. State, 916 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1996, pet. ref'd).

Because these opinions consider and answer contentions that are the same as made by appellant, no further discussion is necessary. Appellant's point of error is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

Carl E. F. Dally, Justice

Before Justices Powers, Kidd and Dally*

Affirmed

Filed: June 26, 1997

Do Not Publish

* Before Carl E. F. Dally, Judge (retired), Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West 1988).

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

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-96-00448-CR Paul Allgyer, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUNTY

NO. 42,941, HONORABLE HOWARD S. WARNER, II, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Paul Allgyer appeals from his conviction as a second offender for driving a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). The court assessed appellant's punishment at confinement in the county jail for two years probated and a fine of $750.00. We will affirm.

The only issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion to quash the information. In his motion to quash, appellant alleged the information should be quashed because it failed to allege a culpable mental state. Appellant urged at trial, and contends on appeal, that the Penal Code requires the State in its information in driving while intoxicated prosecutions to allege a culpable mental state. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.02(b) (West 1994). Although appellant makes cogent arguments in his brief, precedent is squarely against him. Contentions and arguments that are the same as those made by appellant have been considered and rejected in five recent opinions by four courts of appeals, including this Court. See Sanders v. State, 936 S.W.2d 436 (Tex. App.--Austin 1996, pet. ref'd); Aguirre v. State, 928 S.W.2d 759 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no pet.); State v. Sanchez, 925 S.W.2d 371 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd); Chunn v. State, 923 S.W.2d 728 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd); Reed v. State, 916 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1996, pet. ref'd).

Because these opinions consider and answer contentions that are the same as made by appellant, no further discussion is necessary. Appellant's point of error is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

Carl E. F. Dally, Justice

Before Justices Powers, Kidd and Dally*

Affirmed

Filed: June 26, 1997

Do Not Publish

* Before Carl E. F. Dally, Judge (retired), Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West 1988).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Paul Allgyer v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-allgyer-v-state-texapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack