Alston v. State, 09
| Decision Date | 07 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 09,09 |
| Parties | Danetta F. ALSTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. 86 228 CR. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appellant was indicted for the felony commission of Hindering Secured Creditor. A jury found Appellant guilty of Misdemeanor Hindering Secured Creditor, a lesser included offense. The trial court assessed Appellant's punishment at one year in the Hardin County jail. Appellant's sentence was probated; a fine of $200.00, court costs of $112.00, and restitution of $1,614.72 were imposed. Appeal was perfected to this court.
Appellant's first two points of error contend that the applicable statute of limitations had run on both the felony and the misdemeanor at the time of the presentment of the indictment.
The applicable penal statute is TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. sec. 32.33 (Vernon Supp.1987). The indictment charged Appellant with commission of the offense in Hardin County on or about April 23, 1981. The indictment was presented into court by the grand jury on November 13, 1984, some three and one-half years later. The statute of limitations applicable to the offense charged is the three year period provided in TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 12.01(4) (Vernon Supp.1987). As stated, in the case at bar, the Appellant was convicted of the lesser offense of Misdemeanor Hindering Secured Creditor. The statute of limitations requires a misdemeanor be presented within two years from the date of the offense. TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 12.02 (Vernon 1977).
The State admits these dates and the limitation periods we set forth above, but it is the State's position that since the defense was not raised prior to or during the trial, it was waived and cannot be raised for the first time before an appellate court.
In Dickerson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 942, 943 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), Judge Dally wrote for the Court:
In Dickerson v. State, supra, the State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Maling
...practice in state jurisdictions which requires the indictment to state any reliance on tolling provisions. See, e.g., Alston v. Texas, 738 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.App.1987); State v. Still-well, 175 N.J.Super. 244, 418 A.2d 267 (1980). The defendants, however, fail to assert any federal law authori......
-
State v. Yount
...the statute of limitations applicable to the time-barred offense. Additionally, appellee argues that not only Gallardo, but also Alston v. State, 738 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1987, no pet.), supports the court of appeals' disposition of this The court of appeals' reliance upon Gallard......
-
McKinney v. State
...37.09. 11. 853 S.W.2d at 8 (distinguishing Gallardo v. State, 768 S.W.2d 875, 879 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1989, pet. ref'd) and Alston v. State, 738 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1987, no ...
-
Gallardo v. State
...due to a longer applicable period of limitation. See McKinney v. State, 96 Tex.Crim. 342, 257 S.W. 258 (1923); Alston v. State, 738 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1987); Peacock v. State, 690 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.App.--Tyler 1985). See also 21 AM.JUR.2d, Criminal Law, § 225, p. Over the years th......