Richard v. State
| Decision Date | 29 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 57981,57981,3 |
| Parties | Vernon RICHARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Before ROBERTS, PHILLIPS and VOLLER, JJ.
Appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of nolo contendere before the court to the offense of theft by check, a Class A misdemeanor. The court assessed punishment at a fine of $300.00. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sec. 31.03(d) (3).
The record is before us without a transcription of the court reporter's notes or bills of exception. No brief was filed in the trial court in appellant's behalf pursuant to Article 40.09(9), Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. There is no showing of indigency.
However, there exists a fundamental defect in the charging instrument which requires our attention in the interest of justice. Article 40.09(13), V.A.C.C.P. The information alleges, in pertinent part, that appellant "did then and there unlawfully appropriate property, to-wit: Merchandise . . . ." It is clear that "merchandise" is so insufficient a description as to amount to no description and it will render an indictment fundamentally defective. Willis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 544 S.W.2d 150; Rhodes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 560 S.W.2d 665 (1978). No distinction can be properly made when the prosecution rests on an information, as opposed to an indictment. Article 21.21(7), V.A.C.C.P.; American Plant Food Corp. v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 508 S.W.2d 598. We therefore reverse the conviction and dismiss the prosecution.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. State, 67486
...QUASH WAS FILED (FUNDAMENTAL ERROR) See, "property," Harris v. State, 587 S.W.2d 429 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); "merchandise," Richard v. State, 563 S.W.2d 626 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) and Willis v. State, 544 S.W.2d 150 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); "corporeal personal property," Mankin v. State, 451 S.W.2d 236 (Te......
-
Roberson v. State
...as may be, shall suffice...." Although the term "merchandise" alone is so insufficient as to amount to no description, Richard v. State, 563 S.W.2d 626 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), it is a sufficient description where name, kind, number and ownership of stolen property are unknown and that fact is ......
-
Brackley-Gross v. State, 07-14-00269-CR
...v. State, 587 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (finding "property" to be aninsufficient description); Richard v. State, 563 S.W.2d 626, 626-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (finding "merchandise" to be an insufficient description). While it can reasonably be argued that the description of th......
-
Sanders v. State, 2-83-379-CR
..."oil field equipment of value over $50.00," Leos v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 478, 236 S.W.2d 817 (1951); "merchandise," Richard v. State, 563 S.W.2d 626 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); "certain lubricating oil," Scott v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 396, 67 S.W.2d 1040 (1934); "seed of the value in excess of $50.......