Perez v. State

480 S.W.2d 687, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1953
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided June 7, 1972·No. Nos. 45377, 45378·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellants are charged with the offense of “operating] and assisting] in operating an open saloon” in violation of Article 666-3, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.

[688]*688After these prosecutions began, the Legislature amended Article 666-3, V.A.P.C., and deleted that portion of it which dealt with the open saloon. Williams and Liggins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 476 S.W.2d 307. See Vernon’s General and Special Laws of Texas, Vol. 1, Ch. 65, Sec. 1 at 681. Consequently, there is no longer a basis for prosecution in the cases at bar. Williams and Liggins v. State, supra. Since the convictions are not final, they require reversal. Mendoza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 460 S.W.2d 145. See also Article 14, V.A.P.C.

The judgments are reversed and the causes are dismissed.

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

Perez v. State, 480 S.W.2d 687, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1953 (Tex. 1972).

480 S.W.2d 687 (Perez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Enrique Martinez v. State
503 S.W.3d 728 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016)
Ex Parte Mangrum
564 S.W.2d 751 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)