Moore v. State
Decision Date | 15 October 1980 |
Docket Number | Nos. 58883,No. 1,58884,s. 58883,1 |
Citation | 605 S.W.2d 924 |
Parties | Ricky Levone MOORE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Leonard M. Roth, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Clyde F. DeWitt, III, and Doug Shaver, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ONION, P. J., and DOUGLAS and W. C. DAVIS, JJ.
Cause No. 58,884 is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of aggravated sexual abuse. The punishment was assessed at imprisonment for ninety-nine years. Cause No. 58,883 is an appeal from an order revoking probation. In the case of the latter cause number, the appellant had pled guilty to the offense of attempted rape. Punishment was assessed at imprisonment for six years but the sentence was suspended and the appellant was placed on probation. We shall discuss each case separately.
V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 21.05, which defines aggravated sexual abuse provides in part:
The appellant contends that there was a total failure to allege that he threatened the complainant with imminent death or serious bodily injury. We agree and reverse.
The statute states that the threat must provide for the imminent infliction of death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping. Just as the indictment must allege that the threat was of death, serious bodily injury or kidnapping, so must the indictment allege the threat was of imminent harm. Anything less would not allege all the elements of the offense of aggravated sexual abuse.
The language of this statute tracks the language of V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 21.03 which outlines the offense of aggravated rape. See also V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sections 22.01(a)(2), and 29.02(a)(2). In the practice commentary to Section 21.03, it is noted that the threatened harm must be "imminent" and "hence a threat to harm someone at an indeterminate time in the future does not aggravate." This Court in Blount v. State, 542 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), reversed an aggravated rape conviction because the aggravation element was not established by the evidence. The threat involved was held to be conditional and to take place at some indefinite time in the future and therefore not "imminent."
In the case at bar the indictment alleges only that a threat was made. It completely fails to allege that the threatened harm was to take place very shortly upon failure by the complainant to submit to the appellant's demands. Such imminent infliction of harm cannot be inferred from the allegations in the indictment. Nor does the indictment allege that a deadly weapon was displayed so as to constitute a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adams v. State
...County. This violation standing alone is sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction under section 841.082. Cf. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Ro......
-
State v. Ketchum
...Ariz. 315, 541 P.2d 912 (1975); Gordon v. State, 601 S.W.2d 598 (Ark.1980); State v. Phillips, 556 P.2d 1054 (Okl.1976); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); State v. Clark, 197 Neb. 42, 246 N.W.2d 657 We conclude that there was no reversible error on the part of the trial cour......
-
Lee v. State
...is sufficient to support an order revoking probation. O'Neal v. State, 623 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Although we conclude that ......
-
Ransier v. State
...asked us to affirm the judgment because appellant had not disputed that he altered the syringe by changing its location.3 See Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (defendant must challenge each ground on which the trial court relies on to rule against the ......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...of community supervision, the revocation order shall be a൶rmed if one su൶cient ground supports the court’s order. [ Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Stevens v. State , 2005 WL 2044533, *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 25, 2005)(unpublished opinion).] Additionally, a......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...of community supervision, the revocation order shall be affirmed if one sufficient ground supports the court’s order. [ Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Stevens v. State , 2005 WL 2044533, *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 25, 2005)(unpublished opinion).] Additionall......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...of community supervision, the revocation order shall be a൶rmed if one su൶cient ground supports the court’s order. [ Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980); Stevens v. State , 2005 WL 2044533, *2 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth Aug. 25, 2005).] Additionally, a plea of true standing alo......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...of community supervision, the revocation order shall be affirmed if one sufficient ground supports the court’s order. [ Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980); Stevens v. State , 2005 WL 2044533, *2 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth Aug. 25, 2005).] Additionally, a plea of true standing......