Reed v. State, 61763
| Decision Date | 26 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 61763,61763,2 |
| Citation | 586 S.W.2d 870 |
| Parties | Cathleen I. REED, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Michael E. Barrow, Houston (Court-appointed), for appellant.
Robert Huttash, State's Atty., and Alfred Walker, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before DOUGLAS, PHILLIPS and CLINTON, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. Appellant was originally convicted of forgery by passing, an offense under V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 32.21(a)(1)(B) and (b). Appellant's punishment was assessed at imprisonment for five years, probated. Probation was revoked, and appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for two to five years.
In her second supplemental brief appellant contends that the forgery indictment in this case is fundamentally defective for failure to allege that the writing she passed purported to be the act of another "who did not authorize that act." See Section 32.21(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Penal Code.
The indictment alleges in pertinent part that appellant "did then and there unlawfully and with intent to defraud and harm, forge the writing duplicated below by passing it (knowing it was forged) to Charles Kirkland." A photocopy of the forged writing (a check) is attached to the indictment. The name of the maker on the check is different from that of the appellant, and the check is made out to appellant. On its face the check purports to be the act of another.
This Court has recently held that where the forged writing purports to be the act of another, the State must further allege in the indictment that it was the act of another "who did not authorize that act." Landry v. State,583 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Cr.App.1979, Opinion on Appellant's Motion for Rehearing); Minix v. State, 579 S.W.2d 466 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). The quoted statutory language constitutes an essential element of the offense and the failure to allege that language renders the indictment fundamentally defective. The indictment in this case is void under the authority of those decisions.
A fundamentally defective indictment may be collaterally attacked in an appeal from a revocation of probation. Rejcek v. State, 545 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Huggins v. State, 544 S.W.2d 147 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Appellant's conviction, being based on a void indictment, cannot stand.
The judgment is reversed and the prosecution under the present indictment is ordered dismissed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. State
...S.W.2d 266. Absent jurisdiction, the judgement of the trial court is void ab initio. Standley v. State, 517 S.W.2d 538; see, e.g. Reed v. State, 586 S.W.2d 870; Ex parte Roberts, 522 S.W.2d "All jurisdictional requirements must be satisfied or the court's action, other than dismissal, is vo......
-
Pannell v. State
...conviction may be collaterally attacked in a probation revocation proceeding only if it is fundamentally defective. Reed v. State, 586 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). Here, although it appears that a characterization of the forged instrument was omitted after the word "that" in the charging......
-
Allison v. State, 67400
...his right to do so in an appeal from an order revoking probation, see Daniels v. State, 573 S.W.2d 21 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Reed v. State, 586 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Appellant contends the indictment is defective because it fails to define what type of "owner" was involved and fails to ......
-
Wallace v. State, 04-81-00149-CR
...to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of could not have affected the verdict in this case. See Reed v. State, 586 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Gassett v. State, 532 S.W.2d 328 I would reverse and remand the cause. 1 Although the record is poorly developed on this ......