Barraza v. State
| Decision Date | 20 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 892-87,892-87 |
| Citation | 790 S.W.2d 654 |
| Parties | Alodio BARRAZA, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Nate Rhodes, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Carlos Valdez, County Atty., Robert J. Gonzalez, Jay M. Wright, Asst. County Attys., Corpus Christi, and Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
A jury found appellant, Alodio Barraza, Jr., guilty of driving while intoxicated. The trial court placed him on probation for two years and assessed a fine of $360.00. He appealed to the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals asserting the trial court had erred in refusing to grant his motion to quash the information because it failed to allege the manner of intoxication. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to quash, Barraza v. State, 733 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1987), and we granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to examine the lower appellate court's opinion. We affirm.
Appellant was charged by information with driving while intoxicated, conduct proscribed by Article 6701l -1, V.A.C.S. The information alleged that appellant "did then and there while intoxicated, drive and operate a motor vehicle in a public place." "Intoxication" is defined by statute as:
Recently in Solis v. State, 787 S.W.2d 388 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), this Court held that a charging instrument need not allege which of the two ways a person is deemed to be intoxicated when charging an offense for driving while intoxicated. This Court determined:
"Because the methods of proving intoxication by alcohol are set out statutorily and do not depend on any conduct committed by a defendant, other than introduction of alcohol into the body--which was already alleged--the State need not specify in the charging instrument whether it will use loss of faculties or alcohol content to prove the offense." 787 S.W.2d at 391.
AccordState v. Winskey 790 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.Cr.App. 1990). But see Garcia v. State, 747 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. State, B14-90-029-CR
...789, 790-91 (Tex.App.--Waco 1985, pet. ref'd); Barraza v. State, 733 S.W.2d 379, 381-82 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1987), aff'd, 790 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Lewis v. State, 771 S.W.2d 666, 667 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). We therefore hold that the pleading in this ca......
-
Maxwell v. State
...pet. ref'd, 825 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.Crim. App. 1992); Barraza v. State, 733 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1987), aff'd, 790 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). 3. Appellant does not contend that his consent to give a breath specimen was coerced or involuntary as he had argued at trial in......
-
State v. Kurtz
...suspicion existed when officer observed defendant weaving within his own lane and making two improper turns), aff'd, 790 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Miffleton v. State, 728 S.W.2d 880, 883 (Tex.App.-Austin 1987) (reasonable suspicion existed based on defendant's rapid acceleration, weav......
-
Lonsdale v. State, No. 08-05-00139-CR (Tex. App. 8/29/2006)
...tests, evidence of his refusal was admissible); Barraza v. State, 733 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1987) aff'd, 790 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990)(because a request to perform field sobriety test and breathalyzer test are sufficiently similar no reason to distinguish between th......