Cox v. State
| Decision Date | 18 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 56763,No. 1,56763,1 |
| Citation | 560 S.W.2d 675 |
| Parties | Paul W. COX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. . Panel |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Peter A. Lesser, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry M. Wade, Dist. Atty., Maridell Templeton and Winfield Scott, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, for the State.
Before TOM G. DAVIS, DALLY and W. C. DAVIS, JJ.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for theft over $200.00. Appellant entered a plea of guilty, after which punishment was assessed at eight years.
In his sole ground of error, appellant complains that the indictment in the instant case "was fundamentally defective in that said indictment failed to comply with the requirements of Article 21.09 (V.A.C.C.P.)."
Article 21.09, V.A.C.C.P., provides, in pertinent part:
The above quoted language was incorporated into Art. 21.09 by an amendment effective June 19, 1975, 1 and is applicable to this indictment which was returned on December 8, 1975.
The indictment in the instant case alleges that the appellant:
"did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally appropriate property, other than real property, to wit: one ring of the value of at least $200.00 but less than $10,000.00, without the effective consent of Harlin R. Robinson, the owner thereof. . . ."
Appellant contends that the amended language in Art. 21.09, supra, "is more stringent in its requirements as to what must be alleged in an indictment" than was the old language. This Court has specifically rejected the proposition. In Welch v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 543 S.W.2d 378, 380, we said:
"We conclude that Art. 21.09, supra, as amended, places no greater burden on the State to more specifically describe personal property alleged in an indictment than before."
An indictment which was sufficient before the amendment would still be sufficient today.
In Bruner v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 509 S.W.2d 620, we held the description "two suits" was sufficient. In Ashford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 27, we found the description "one purse" to be sufficient. In Mays v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 428 S.W.2d 325, we found the description "one television set" was sufficient. See also Kirkland v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 298, 299 (); Wilson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 398 S.W.2d 291 ("ten drill bits").
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. State, 67486
...456 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). PROPERTY DESCRIPTION HELD SUFFICIENT-NO MOTION TO QUASH WAS FILED See, "one ring," Cox v. State, 560 S.W.2d 675 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); "one pick-up truck," White v. State, 505 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); "One purse," Ashford v. State, 502 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Cr.Ap......
-
DeVaughn v. State
...1975). We have held that the 1974 amendment did not increase the State's pleading requirement under the statute. Cox v. State, 560 S.W.2d 675, 676 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Welch v. State, 543 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).6 See, e.g., Ford v. State, 632 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Ortega v.......
-
Watts v. State, 2-82-165-CR
...indictment [is] a sufficient description of the property." Mays v. State, 428 S.W.2d 325, 326 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). See Cox v. State, 560 S.W.2d 675, 676 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), and see generally, Wood v. State, 632 S.W.2d 734, 736-37 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). Ground of error one is Watts' second ground o......