Richard v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Richard v. State

563 S.W.2d 626, 1978 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1103

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 29, 1978

Docket57981

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 563 S.W.2d 626 (Richard 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

Richard v. State, 563 S.W.2d 626, 1978 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1103 (Tex. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of nolo contendere before the court to the offense of theft by check, a Class A misdemeanor. The court assessed punishment at a fine of $300.00. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sec. 31.03(d)(3).

The record is before us without a transcription of the court reporter’s notes or bills of exception. No brief was filed in the trial court in appellant’s behalf pursuant to Article 40.09(9), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. There is no showing of indigency.

However, there exists a fundamental defect in the charging instrument which requires our attention in the interest of justice. Article 40.09(13), V.A.C.C.P. The information alleges, in pertinent part, that appellant “did then and there unlawfully appropriate property, to-wit: Merchandise . .” It is clear that “merchandise” is so insufficient a description as to amount to no description and it will render an indictment fundamentally defective. Willis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 544 S.W.2d 150; Rhodes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 560 S.W.2d 665 (1978). No distinction can be properly made when the prosecution rests on an information, as opposed to an indictment. Article 21.21(7), V.A.C.C.P.; American Plant Food Corp. v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 508 *627 S.W.2d 598. We therefore reverse the conviction and dismiss the prosecution.

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

OPINION

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of nolo contendere before the court to the offense of theft by check, a Class A misdemeanor. The court assessed punishment at a fine of $300.00. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sec. 31.03(d)(3).

The record is before us without a transcription of the court reporter’s notes or bills of exception. No brief was filed in the trial court in appellant’s behalf pursuant to Article 40.09(9), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. There is no showing of indigency.

However, there exists a fundamental defect in the charging instrument which requires our attention in the interest of justice. Article 40.09(13), V.A.C.C.P. The information alleges, in pertinent part, that appellant “did then and there unlawfully appropriate property, to-wit: Merchandise . .” It is clear that “merchandise” is so insufficient a description as to amount to no description and it will render an indictment fundamentally defective. Willis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 544 S.W.2d 150; Rhodes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 560 S.W.2d 665 (1978). No distinction can be properly made when the prosecution rests on an information, as opposed to an indictment. Article 21.21(7), V.A.C.C.P.; American Plant Food Corp. v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 508 *627 S.W.2d 598. We therefore reverse the conviction and dismiss the prosecution.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

563 S.W.2d 626, 1978 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-v-state-texcrimapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack