Clopton v. State, 39827
| Decision Date | 09 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39827,39827 |
| Citation | 408 S.W.2d 112 |
| Parties | Anthony Z. CLOPTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Tom Upchurch, Jr., Amarillo (on appeal only), for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving while intoxicated as a second offender; the punishment, two years.
In making out its case as to the prior conviction alleged for enhancement, the State showed that appellant had been convicted in Potter County in a certain cause number and had been granted probation in said cause, but there was no showing that the order granting probation had been revoked. In the absence of proof of a final conviction of driving a motor vehicle on a public road while intoxicated, the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of the subsequent offense of driving while intoxicated under Article 802b, Vernon's Ann.P.C.
Since no order revoking probation nor any judgment of conviction was introduced, there was no proof of a prior conviction, which is an essential element of the felony charged in an indictment. Skaggs v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 20, 266 S.W.2d 871.
In view of another trial attention is directed to the rule that an indictment may not be amended as to a matter of substance, and the date of a former conviction alleged for enhancement is a matter of substance. Morman v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 264, 75 S.W.2d 886.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brasfield v. State
..."gross" from "gross negligence"); Balbuena v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 227, 262 S.W.2d 727 (changing "whiskey" to "beer"); Clopton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 408 S.W.2d 112 (date of prior conviction alleged for enhancement); Jackson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 419 S.W.2d 370 (changing spelling of deceas......
-
State v. Fogel
...S.E. 594 (1932); State v. Dowd, 201 N.C. 714, 161 S.E. 205 (1931); State v. Russell, 231 Or. 317, 372 P.2d 770 (1962); Clopton v. State, 408 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.Crim.App.1966); State v. Dopp, 127 Vt. 567, 255 A.2d 186 There is no law in the State of Arizona which permits an amendment of substan......
-
Burrell v. State
...an indictment as to substance could be made at any time. See also Jackson v. State, 419 S.W.2d 370 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Clopton v. State, 408 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.Cr.App.1966). Thus, it appears that appellant is not foreclosed from his failure to object at trial if the amendment does indeed involv......
-
Hogue v. State
...of the offense of felony driving while intoxicated. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6701l -1(e) (Vernon Supp.1987). See Clopton v. State, 408 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Boiles v. State, 662 S.W.2d 170, 172 (Tex.App.-Austin 1983, no pet.). Hogue asserts that the indictment is insufficient to c......