Vallejo v. State
| Decision Date | 09 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39794,39794 |
| Citation | 408 S.W.2d 113 |
| Parties | Herman R. VALLEJO, Jr. v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert O. Smith, Paul T. Holt, Austin, for appellant.
Doren R. Eskew, City Atty., Don R. Butler, Asst. City Atty., Austin, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The offense is speeding; the punishment, a fine of $101.
Appellant's conviction resulted from a trial de novo on March 17, 1966, in The County Court at Law No. 1 of Travis County, after an appeal from a conviction upon complaint in the Corporation Court of the City of Austin.
Only one ground of error is presented by appellant on appeal--which is the contention that the complaint upon which he stands convicted is void because it does not meet the requirements of Art. 1, Sec. 10 of the Constitution of this State, Vernon's Ann.St., and of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The complaint signed and sworn to by the affiant, which was filed in the Corporation Court, reads in part, as follows:
did drive and operate a motor vehicle upon a public street therein situated at a speed which was greater than was then reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing, to-wit, at a speed of 45 miles per hour, at which time and place the lawful maximum prima facie reasonable and prudent speed indicated by an official sign then and there posted was 30 miles per hour;
AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.'
It is first contended by appellant that the complaint does not meet the basic essential requirements of an 'accusation,' as contemplated by Art. 1, Sec. 10, of our State Constitution because it does not Accuse him of committing an offense.
In this connection, appellant argues that in the complaint the affiant merely says that he believes and has good reason to believe that appellant drove his motor vehicle too fast and makes no direct or positive averment that an offense was committed.
While the term 'charge' is not used in the complaint, the statement of the affiant that he believed and had good reason to believe that appellant Did drive his motor vehicle upon a public highway at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances--to wit: 45 miles per hour at a place where the lawful maximum prima facie reasonable and prudent speed posted was 30 miles per hour--was tantamount to a charge and accusation that an offense was committed.
Appellant, from reading the complaint, could ascertain with reasonable certainty with what he was being charged so as to properly prepare a defense. It is the rule that a complaint must state facts sufficient to show the commission of an offense charged but the same particularity is not required as is necessary in an indictment or information. See: 16 Tex.Jur.2d 297--298, Sec. 146.
In Art. 45.27 of the 1965 Code it is provided that a defendant shall not be discharged by reason of an informality in a complaint filed against him in a justice court. The same rule would certainly apply to a complaint filed in corporation court.
Walton v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 262, 284 S.W.2d 373, and Ex parte Greenwood, 165...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. State
...Court granted appellant's petition to review three grounds: (1) whether the Court of Appeals misapplied the ruling in Vallejo v. State, 408 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.Cr.App.1966) by holding it is unnecessary for an affidavit in support of an arrest warrant issued under Chapter 45 of the Code of Crimi......
-
Lowery v. State, 45613
...cause with that specificity necessary for issuance of an arrest warrant. Chapa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 943; Vallejo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 408 S.W.2d 113. Affidavits filed for issuance of arrest warrants must provide the magistrate with 'sufficient information to support an indepe......
-
Academy, Inc. v. Vance
...to the issuance of an arrest warrant where no search is involved. Chapa v. State, 420 S.W.2d 943 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), Vallejo v. State, 408 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.Cr.App. 1966). The Court of Criminal Appeals declared in Chapa "Barnes and Aguilar established standards for complaints upon which search......
-
Janecka v. State
...or complaint in support of an arrest warrant need not contain the same particularity required of an indictment. Vallejo v. State, 408 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.Cr.App.1966). Nor is the information in such an affidavit required to match in quality or quantity the evidence necessary to obtain a convict......