State v. Cabello

Court of Appeals of Texas

State v. Cabello

981 S.W.2d 444, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 6213, 1998 WL 691016

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 7, 1998

Docket04-97-01041-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 981 S.W.2d 444 (State v. Cabello) 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

State v. Cabello, 981 S.W.2d 444, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 6213, 1998 WL 691016 (Tex. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

HARDBERGER, Chief Justice.

Hector Cabello (“Cabello”) was convicted in the Municipal Court of Laredo for failing to comply with the instructions of a police officer. Cabello appealed the conviction to the County Court at Law No. 2 of Webb County. Prior to trial, the county court granted Cabello’s motion to quash the complaint, and the State appealed the dismissal to this court in appeal number 04-96-00748-CR. We reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because section 44.181(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal procedure precluded the county court from dismissing the case based on a defect in the complaint. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.181(a) (Vernon Supp. 1998); see also State v. Cabello, No. 04-96-00748-CR, 1997 WL 184729 (Tex.App.—San *445 Antonio, Apr.16, 1997, no pet.) (not designated for publication).

On November 17,1997, the case was called for trial, and after a jury was selected, Cabel-lo’s trial counsel made a verbal motion to dismiss, contending the complaint was defective. The trial court granted the motion “for lack of information on the complaint.”

Discussion

A trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss a charging instrument will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. See State v. Perez, 906 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995), aff'd, 947 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to guiding principles or rules. Lyles v. State, 850 S.W.2d 497, 502 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

Article 44.181(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “[a] court conducting a trial de novo on an appeal from a justice or municipal court may not dismiss the case because of a defect in the complaint.” Tex.Code CRiM. PROC. Ann. art. 44.181(a) (Vernon Supp.1998). By granting a motion to dismiss this case for lack of information in the complaint, the trial court abused its discretion by acting without reference to article 44.181(a). 1

The trial court’s order granting Cabello’s motion to dismiss is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

1

. We note our holding is consistent with our prior decision in this case. See State v. Cabello, No. 04-96-00748-CR, 1997 WL 184729 (Tex.App.—San Antonio, Apr.16, 1997, no pet.) (not designated for publication).

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

OPINION

HARDBERGER, Chief Justice.

Hector Cabello (“Cabello”) was convicted in the Municipal Court of Laredo for failing to comply with the instructions of a police officer. Cabello appealed the conviction to the County Court at Law No. 2 of Webb County. Prior to trial, the county court granted Cabello’s motion to quash the complaint, and the State appealed the dismissal to this court in appeal number 04-96-00748-CR. We reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because section 44.181(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal procedure precluded the county court from dismissing the case based on a defect in the complaint. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.181(a) (Vernon Supp. 1998); see also State v. Cabello, No. 04-96-00748-CR, 1997 WL 184729 (Tex.App.—San *445 Antonio, Apr.16, 1997, no pet.) (not designated for publication).

On November 17,1997, the case was called for trial, and after a jury was selected, Cabel-lo’s trial counsel made a verbal motion to dismiss, contending the complaint was defective. The trial court granted the motion “for lack of information on the complaint.”

Discussion

A trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss a charging instrument will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. See State v. Perez, 906 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995), aff'd, 947 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to guiding principles or rules. Lyles v. State, 850 S.W.2d 497, 502 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

Article 44.181(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “[a] court conducting a trial de novo on an appeal from a justice or municipal court may not dismiss the case because of a defect in the complaint.” Tex.Code CRiM. PROC. Ann. art. 44.181(a) (Vernon Supp.1998). By granting a motion to dismiss this case for lack of information in the complaint, the trial court abused its discretion by acting without reference to article 44.181(a). 1

The trial court’s order granting Cabello’s motion to dismiss is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

1

. We note our holding is consistent with our prior decision in this case. See State v. Cabello, No. 04-96-00748-CR, 1997 WL 184729 (Tex.App.—San Antonio, Apr.16, 1997, no pet.) (not designated for publication).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

981 S.W.2d 444, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 6213, 1998 WL 691016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cabello-texapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack