Scates v. State, 27282
| Decision Date | 05 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 27282,27282 |
| Citation | 161 Tex.Crim. 114,274 S.W.2d 833 |
| Parties | Elmer D. SCATES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
No attorney on appeal for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
Appellant appeals from a conviction for the offense of driving while intoxicated; his punishment was assessed, by the jury, at a fine of $50.
No statement of facts accompanies the record.
The offense was alleged to have been committed on or about November 25, 1953. The court's charge submitted said date as being on or about November 25, 1953. The charge submitted the punishment fixed by Art. 802, Vernon's Ann.P.C., prior to its amendment in 1953, and the jury assessed a fine of $50 and no jail term.
The state is not restricted to the exact date laid in the complaint or information, but may prove the offense, if it can, to have been committed at any time within the period of limitation. Randolph v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 80, 36 S.W.2d 484.
In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to determine that the offense was committed after the effective date of the amendment of Art. 802, Vernon's Ann.P.C., which provides for a compulsory jail term.
On appeal the presumption obtains that the conviction was regular and that the offense charged was found to have been committed within the time prescribed by law authorizing the penalty assessed unless the contrary is made to appear. 4 Tex.Jur. 534, Sec. 379; 4 Tex.Jur. 554, Sec. 390.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mireles v. State
..."on or about" jury charges to be proper in Ellis v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 87, 318 S.W.2d 655 (App.1958), and Scates v. State, 161 Tex.Crim. 114, 274 S.W.2d 833 (App.1955). The court of appeals cited Ex parte Klasing, 738 S.W.2d 648 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), as authority for its holding in the ins......
-
Armstrong v. State
...v. State, 510 S.W.2d 919, 921 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Martinez v. State, 504 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Scates v. State, 161 Tex.Crim. 114, 274 S.W.2d 833, 834 (1955). The burden is on appellant to overcome the presumption that the judgment is correct. Tennison v. State, 168 Tex.Crim......
-
Ex parte Stacey
...v. State, 510 S.W.2d 919, 921 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Martinez v. State, 504 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Scates v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 114, 274 S.W.2d 833, 834 (1955). The burden is on appellant to overcome the presumption that the judgment is correct. Tennison v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...been incorrect if the offense occurred on the actual date which the offense was alleged to have occurred." See Scates v. State, 274 S.W.2d 833, 833-34 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955) (addressing issue of whether punishment was incorrectly assessed under prior version of statute that had been amended......