Ex parte Chance, 64306
| Decision Date | 09 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 64306,64306 |
| Parties | Ex parte Jimmy Dale CHANCE, Appellant. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Art. 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.
On August 16, 1979 petitioner was convicted of burglary of a building in Cause No. 27,752 in the 27th District Court of Bell County. Petitioner urges that his conviction must be set aside because the indictment in the cause alleges an impossible date. The trial court has filed findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting petitioner's claim. We agree that petitioner is entitled to relief.
The indictment was filed on June 20, 1979. It alleges that petitioner committed the offense on December 25, 1979. An indictment that alleges an impossible date is fundamentally defective. Ex parte Legg, 571 S.W.2d 930 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Moreno v. State, 375 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); Warner v. State, 74 Tex.Cr.R. 209, 167 S.W. 1109 (1914, Opinion on Motion for Rehearing).
Although the record indicates that the State attempted to amend the date alleged in the indictment on the day of trial, it was without authority to do so. This Court has long held that the alleged date of the commission of the offense is a matter of substance, and cannot be amended. Kirkendall v. State, 78 Tex.Cr.R. 168, 180 S.W. 676 (1915); Mealer v. State, 66 Tex.Cr.R. 140, 145 S.W. 353 (1911, Opinion on Motion for Rehearing); Huff v. State, 23 Tex.App. 293, 4 S.W. 890 (1887); Drummond v. State, 4 Tex.App. 150 (1878). See Art. 27.08, V.A.C.C.P.
The relief sought is granted. The indictment and conviction in Cause No. 27,752 are set aside, and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher v. State
...manner and means of committing the offense where it is the manner and means that renders the act criminal. See, e.g., Ex parte Chance, 601 S.W.2d 356 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (indictment alleging date of offense that was subsequent to date of indictment fundamentally defective); Smith v. State, ......
-
Ex parte Gibson
...the past that the alleged date of the commission of the offense is a matter of substance in a charging instrument. See Ex parte Chance, 601 S.W.2d 356 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); and Ex parte McFarland, 632 S.W.2d 621 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (Opinion on State's Motion for Rehearing). See also Art. 27.08(2......
-
Garrett v. State
...Before 1985, an error in an indictment could not be amended if the error related to a "matter of substance." See Ex parte Chance, 601 S.W.2d 356, 356 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (holding that indictment alleging an impossible date had to be dismissed because the alleged date of the offense is a mat......
-
Busselman v. State, s. 01-85-0963-CR
...of the date, which is a matter of substance that may not be changed on the face of an information or indictment. Ex parte Chance, 601 S.W.2d 356 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). Consequently, the judgment of conviction in cause number 9542 is We next turn to trial court cause number 9540 in which appel......