Ex parte Osbourn
| Decision Date | 20 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 59776,No. 1,59776,1 |
| Citation | 574 S.W.2d 568 |
| Parties | Ex parte Danny Ray OSBOURN |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Before ONION, P. J., and ROBERTS and W. C. DAVIS, JJ.
This is a post-conviction proceeding brought under Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.
On August 17, 1976 the petitioner was found guilty of delivery of marihuana and his punishment was assessed by the jury at three (3) years' confinement in the Department of Corrections.
It is petitioner's contention that the indictment under which he was convicted is fundamentally defective for failure to allege the amount delivered leaving the penalty to be assessed vague and uncertain. 1
We do not agree that the indictment is fundamentally defective, but an examination of the indictment reveals that it only alleges a misdemeanor. Consequently, we set aside the conviction and remand to the district court to be transferred to a court having jurisdiction of the misdemeanor offense. Suarez v. State, 532 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Whitaker v. State, 572 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). 2
Marihuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. Article 4476-15 (Texas Controlled Substances Act), § 2.03(d)(10), V.A.C.S. The knowing and intentional delivery is prohibited by § 4.05(d) of said statute. Except as provided in § 4.05(f) of Article 4476-15, supra, a knowing or intentional delivery of marihuana is a felony of the third degree. § 4.05(e) of Article 4476-15, supra. Under said § 4.05 the knowing or intentional delivery of marihuana is a Class B misdemeanor if the accused delivers one-fourth ounce or less of marihuana without receiving remuneration. Consequently, since the indictment in the instant case failed to allege the amount of marihuana delivered or whether the delivery was for remuneration, it does not allege a felony. Suarez v. State, supra, at p. 603, and cases there cited.
The conviction is set aside and the relief prayed for is granted.
1 Omitting the formal parts, the indictment alleges the petitioner "on or about the 22nd day of February, A.D. 1976, and before the presentment of this indictment, in said County and State, did then and there knowingly and intentionally deliver to DELL HAMPTON a usable quantity of marijuana . . .."
2 Nothing herein precludes re-indictment. See footnote one of Suarez v. State, supra, at p. 602.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v. State
...of the misdemeanor offense of delivery of marihuana. In Whitaker v. State, 572 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), and Ex parte Osbourn, 574 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), it was stated that an indictment for delivery of marihuana that fails to allege the amount of marihuana delivered or whether t......
-
Tovar v. State
...of marihuana delivered or whether the delivery was for remuneration. Ex Parte Barcelo, Tex.Cr.App., 577 S.W.2d 499; Ex Parte Osbourn, Tex.Cr.App., 574 S.W.2d 568; Whitaker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 572 S.W.2d 956. Likewise, in order to allege a felony offense, an indictment for possession of m......
-
Ex parte Barcelo, 60379
...and (f). Suarez v. State, 532 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Whitaker v. State, 572 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Ex parte Osbourn, 574 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). The State's contention that the appellant is not entitled to relief because he entered into a plea bargain and did not obtain ......
-
Wallace v. State, s. 05-88-00437-C
...art. 4476-15 § 4.01 et seq. The drug weight must correspond to the weight charged in the indictment. See Ex parte Osbourn, 574 S.W.2d 568, 568-69 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Wallace was charged in accordance with the police laboratory's statement of the weight of the drugs which Pena Wallace argue......