Riley v. State

379 S.W.2d 79, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 984

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 1, 1964
• Docket: 36696
• Status: Published

Opinions

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The complaint and information alleged that the appellant did “drive and operate a motor vehicle: to-wit, an automobile, on a public street.and highway — while his Texas license as a commercial operator- was then and there suspended, having been suspended under the provisions of Article 6687b, Sec. 24, of Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Statutes.”

Trial before the court on a plea of not guilty resulted in a judgment finding the appellant guilty and assessing his punishment at 5 days in jail and a fine of $50.

The evidence shown in the statement of facts reveals that on September 1, 1962, the appellant was driving an automobile on a public street in the City of Houston and was involved in a collision with a car driven by Minnie Bell. Police Officer L. Hoffman, Jr. investigated the collision and the appellant told him he had no driver’s license.

Joe Dvorsky, hearing officer and Deputy Custodian of driving records for the Texas Department of Public Safety, produced the records as to the appellant which showed the most recent license was a commercial operator’s license issued April 18, 1962. The records and the evidence show that such license was under suspension on September 1, 1962, by reason of a misdemeanor first offense D. W. I. conviction which became final on May 24, 1962.

The ground upon which reversal is sought is the contention that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to quash the complaint.

The transcript contains no motion to quash the complaint or the information.

The complaint and information are regular on their face.

Art. 513, C.C.P. provides: “All motions to set aside an indictment or information and all special pleas and exceptions shall be in writing.”

In the absence of a motion in writing, any issue as to the form of the information is not before us for review. Howard v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 114, 247 S.W.2d 112; Crawford v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 305 S.W.2d 362; Redding v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 517, 316 S.W.2d 724.

If, despite the statute and the authorities cited, the claimed error in the overruling of the oral motion to quash is before us, the motion is without merit and the overruling thereof presents no error.

The judgment is affirmed.