Sarratt v. State
Decision Date | 24 November 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 53393,53393 |
Citation | 543 S.W.2d 391 |
Parties | Windell Dwayne SARRATT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.
The appellant was convicted on May 29, 1975, of 'unlawful possession of a criminal instrument, to-wit: a forged prescription.' His punishment was assessed at two years, probated. Later, on May 13, 1976, appellant's probation was revoked and sentence was imposed.
Appellant contends that the conviction is void because the district court did not have jurisdiction. We agree and reverse. See Standley v. State, 517 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), and Ramirez v. State, 486 S.W.2d 373 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
Omitting the formal parts, the indictment alleges that on or about February 24, 1975, the appellant:
'Did then and there unlawfully knowingly and intentionally possess a criminal instrument, namely; (sic) a forged prescription, with intent to use it in the commission of obtaining possession of a controlled substance, to-wit: PRELUDIN.'
This indictment is virtually identical to those in Ex Parte Harrell, 542 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), 1 TCR 955. There we construed V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sections 16.01 ( ) and 32.21(a)(1), (c) (possession of a writing with intent to utter it, a Class A misdemeanor). We held that the defendant could have been charged and convicted of the latter offense and that therefore there were 'two statutes that deal with the same subject matter insofar as the forged prescriptions are here concerned.' 542 S.W.2d, at 171, 1 TCR, at 956.
We then concluded that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Garza v. State
...a specific statute controls over a general statute, see Cuellar v. State, 521 S.W.2d 277 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). See also Sarratt v. State, 543 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Ex parte Harrell, 542 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Hines v. State, 515 S.W.2d 670 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). And as appellant not......
-
Cheney v. State
...2 Ex parte McGee, 552 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Ex parte Pribble, 548 S.W.2d 54 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Sarratt v. State, 543 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Ex parte Harrell, 542 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Cuellar v. State, 521 S.W.2d 277 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Hines v. State, 515 S.W.2d 670 (......
-
Ogilvie v. State
...v. State, 641 S.W.2d 236, 238 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Jones v. State, 552 S.W.2d 836, 837 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Sarratt v. State, 543 S.W.2d 391, 392 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); Ex parte Harrell, 542 S.W.2d 169, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); Cuellar v. State, 521 S.W.2d 277, 279 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). Articl......
-
Valdez v. State
...552 S.W.2d 836 (Tex.Cr.App., decided June 29, 1977). See also Cuellar v. State, 521 S.W.2d 277 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Sarratt v. State, 543 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Ex parte Harrell, 542 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Hines v. State, 515 S.W.2d 670 The judgments are reversed and prosecution......