Sellers v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Sellers v. State

536 S.W.2d 564, 1976 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 952

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 19, 1976

DocketNo. 50830

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 536 S.W.2d 564 (Sellers 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

Sellers v. State, 536 S.W.2d 564, 1976 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 952 (Tex. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION „ FOR REHEARING

ONION, Presiding Judge.

Our opinion on original submission is withdrawn and the following is substituted in lieu thereof.

The appellant appeals from a robbery by assault conviction. The punishment was assessed by the jury at twenty (20) years. The offense was shown to have occurred on [565]*565March 18, 1973. The indictment was presented on April 12, 1973.

On rehearing it is called to our attention that the indictment in the instant cause contains the same fundamental defect as that found in Lucero v. State, 502 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), in that it fails to allege “to whom the property allegedly taken belonged.” See also Bouie v. State, 528 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); French v. State, 531 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Arline v. State, 529 S.W.2d 73 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Ainsworth v. State, 531 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Batro v. State, 531 S.W.2d 614 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).

The appellant’s motion is granted, the order of affirmance is withdrawn, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

OPINION

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION „ FOR REHEARING

ONION, Presiding Judge.

Our opinion on original submission is withdrawn and the following is substituted in lieu thereof.

The appellant appeals from a robbery by assault conviction. The punishment was assessed by the jury at twenty (20) years. The offense was shown to have occurred on [565]*565March 18, 1973. The indictment was presented on April 12, 1973.

On rehearing it is called to our attention that the indictment in the instant cause contains the same fundamental defect as that found in Lucero v. State, 502 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), in that it fails to allege “to whom the property allegedly taken belonged.” See also Bouie v. State, 528 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); French v. State, 531 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Arline v. State, 529 S.W.2d 73 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Ainsworth v. State, 531 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Batro v. State, 531 S.W.2d 614 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).

The appellant’s motion is granted, the order of affirmance is withdrawn, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

536 S.W.2d 564, 1976 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sellers-v-state-texcrimapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack