Antwine v. State
| Decision Date | 19 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 49591,49592,s. 49591 |
| Citation | 518 S.W.2d 830 |
| Parties | Spellman ANTWINE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Roger P. Schultz, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Steve Wilensky, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
These appeals are from orders revoking probation. On May 14, 1974, appellant was convicted of burglary of a habitation (V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 30.02(a)(1)) in these causes and punishment was assessed at seven years in each. Imposition of each sentence was suspended and probation granted. On June 28, 1974, a hearing was held on the State's motion to revoke probation, after which the court found that appellant:
'. . . did violate condition A of his probation and that such violation of his probation was that the Defendant committed an offense against the Penal Code of the State of Texas, to-wit: Article 21.09, in that the Defendant, Spellman Antwine, did on May 31, 1974, in Dallas County, Texas, intentionally and knowingly have sexual intercourse with (C.D.), and at the time of said sexual intercourse, said (C.D.) was a female younger than 17 years of age and was not the wife of the said Spellman Antwine.
'The Court further finds that the Defendant knew that this young girl was 13 years of age and that the complainant told him that she was 13 years of age at the time of the sexual intercourse.'
Appellant contends 'the State's motion wholly failed to give fair notice of the conduct or acts for which the State intended to offer evidence to prove a violation of the terms and conditions of appellant's probation.'
Although allegations in a motion to revoke probation need not possess the same particularity as an indictment or information, 1 the motion in the instant case is, in fact, drafted with that particularity. The motion to revoke alleges that:
'On the 31st day of May, 1974, in Dallas County, Texas, Spellman Antwine did then and there intentionally and knowingly, have sexual intercourse with (C.D.), and at the time of said sexual intercourse (C.D.) was not the wife of said Spellman Antwine and was a female younger than 17 years of age.'
V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 21.09(a), states:
'A person commits an offense if he has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife and she is younger than 17 years.'
As can be seen, the motion to revoke closely followed the language of the statute.
Appellant contends that the failure to include the exact age of the female allegedly raped denied him the opportunity to prepare an adequate defense. It is true that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aaron v. State, 51044
...involved the reformation of 'guilty of the offense of burglary with intent to commit theft' to 'attempted burglary.' In Antwine v. State, 518 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), the sentences stated that the convictions were for the offense of rape and we reformed them to read 'burglary of a habi......
-
Ely v. State
...of their request, however, is inapposite, except insofar as it supports the power of this Court to reform judgments. Antwine v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 518 S.W.2d 830. A careful reading of the trial court's charge to the jury in this case supports us in our conclusion that it only authorized th......
-
Ablon v. State, 52171
...the allegations against him so that he may prepare a defense. See Figgins v. State, 528 S.W.2d 261 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Antwine v. State, 518 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Fowler v. State, 509 S.W.2d 871 There was no motion to quash the revocation motion. We do not think the spelling of the d......
-
Dennis v. State
...of Art. 21.03, V.A.C.C.P., "Everything should be stated in an indictment which is necessary to be proved." Also see Antwine v. State, 518 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). "An indictment to be sufficient must specifically allege every constituent element of the offense and leave nothing to......