Shackelford v. State, 48685
| Decision Date | 04 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48685,48685 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | E. E. SHACKELFORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Laird Palmer, Austin, for appellant.
Norman Manning, County Atty., Georgetown, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for criminal libel under Articles 1269 through 1292, Vernon's Ann.P.C. (1925). 1 The jury assessed punishment of one year in the county jail.
The record contains no statement of facts. Appellant represented himself at trial and apparently did not request a court reporter.
The appellant's main contentions are that the libel statutes are unconstitutional as violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Although there is a serious question as to the constitutionality of the criminal libel statutes, it is unnecessary to reach that question.
The complaint upon which this conviction was founded contains a fundamental defect. The jurat on the complaint is defective because it was undated. The jurat to the complaint reads as follows:
'Sworn to and subscribed before me by Mike Harrell on this _ _ Day of March, A.D. 1973.'
To be sufficient, the jurat must be dated. An undated jurat vitiates the complaint. Article 2.04, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Ex parte Day, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 8, 66 S.W.2d 695 (1933); Brown v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.App. 527, 294 S.W.2d 722 (1956); and see also Heredia v. State, 468 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). Since there can be no valid information in the absence of a valid complaint, a complaint without a proper jurat will not support an information. Articles 15.04 and 21.22, V.A.C.C.P.; Carpenter v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 99, 218 S.W.2d 207 (1949). Therefore, the conviction is void.
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
1 Articles 1269 through 1292, V.A.P.C. (1925), have been repealed in toto by the new Penal Code effective January 1, 1974, Acts 1973, 63rd Legislature, Chapter 399, Section 3, Page 994.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pierce
...(1949). A jurat is essential, for without it, the complaint is fatally defective and will not support an information. Shackelford v. State, 516 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). The jurat must be dated and signed by the official character. See 22 Tex.Jur.3d, Criminal Law, Section 2266 at 490. T......
-
Ho v. State
...no pet.); TEX. CODE CRIM.P.ANN. art. 21.22 (Vernon 1989), and a proper jurat is essential to a valid complaint. Shackelford v. State, 516 S.W.2d 180, 180 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). A complaint that is not sworn to before some official or person in authority is insufficient to constitute a basis f......
-
Aguilar v. State
...while proper on its face, the information is actually null and void for want of a valid predicate complaint. Shackelford v. State, 516 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Articles 15.04, 15.05 and 21.22, V.A.C.C.P. Thus without a proper complaint made by a credible person the assistant county att......
-
Reese v. State
...by law to administer oaths. As to the latter, the "holding" is contrary to the more recent decision of the Court in Shackelford v. State, 516 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Cr.App.1974): "To be sufficient the jurat must be dated. An undated jurat vitiates the complaint. Article 2.04, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P." ......
-
Table of cases
...755 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979), §11:72 Sepulveda v. State , 751 S.W.2d 667 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi, 1988), §11:104 Shackelford v. State , 516 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974), §16:14 Sharma v. State , No. 05-13-00339-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6108 (Tex. App.—Dallas, June 5, 2014), §7:25 Shaub v. S......
-
Charging Instruments
...• Is not “dated.” Without the date, the complaint is fatally defective and will not support an information. [ Shackelford v. State , 516 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974).] Declares the signature to be that of “county attorney,” but the oath was actually administered by the assistant county......
-
Charging Instruments
...• Is not “dated.” Without the date, the complaint is fatally defective and will not support an information. [ Shackelford v. State , 516 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974).] • Declares the signature to be that of “county attorney,” but the oath was actually administered by the assis-tant count......
-
Charging Instruments
...• Is not “dated.” Without the date, the complaint is fatally defective and will not support an information. [ Shackelford v. State , 516 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974).] • Declares the signature to be that of “county attorney,” but the oath was actually administered by the assistant county......