Whitaker v. State, 55885
| Decision Date | 01 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 55885,55885 |
| Citation | 572 S.W.2d 956 |
| Parties | Michael Samuel WHITAKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Our prior opinion is withdrawn.
The indictment in this case, omitting the formal parts, alleged that appellant on or about May 18, 1976 did "knowingly and intentionally offer to sell a controlled substance namely: Marijuana, 1 to R. L. FERGUSON." On September 9, 1976 appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty in the 185th Judicial District Court of Harris County. Appellant was convicted, and the court assessed punishment at three (3) years in the Department of Corrections.
An examination of the indictment reveals that it alleges only a misdemeanor. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the cause to the trial court to be transferred to a court having jurisdiction of the misdemeanor offense. 2 Suarez v. State, 532 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
Marihuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. Article 4476-15 (Controlled Substances Act), § 2.03(d)(10), V.A.C.S. Its knowing or intentional delivery is prohibited by § 4.05(d) of Article 4476-15, supra. The term "delivery" includes an offer to sell a controlled substance. § 1.02(8) of Article 4476-15, supra. 3 Since an offer to sell marijuana comes within the meaning of "delivery," a person who knowingly or intentionally offers to sell marihuana commits an offense. However, the inquiry does not end there, as it must next be determined whether a particular offer to sell is a felony or misdemeanor.
§ 4.05(d) of Article 4476-15, supra, as stated above, makes it an offense to knowingly or intentionally deliver (offer to sell) marihuana. 4 Except as provided in § 4.05(f) of Article 4476-15, supra, a knowing or intentional delivery (offer to sell) of marihuana is a felony of the third degree. § 4.05(e) of Article 4476-15, supra. 5 Under § 4.05(f) of Article 4476-15, supra, 6 the knowing or intentional delivery (offer to sell) of marihuana is a Class B misdemeanor if the actor delivers (offers to sell) one-fourth ounce or less without receiving remuneration. Consequently, since the indictment in this case failed to allege the quantity of marihuana which was offered to be sold or whether the offer to sell was for remuneration, it does not allege a felony offense. Suarez v. State, supra, at 603, and cases there cited.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The majority concludes that an examination of the indictment in this cause reveals that it only alleges a misdemeanor. I disagree.
As pointed out in the majority opinion the Controlled Substances Act prohibits the knowing or intentional delivery of marihuana (Section 4.05(d)). The term "delivery" includes an offer to sell a controlled substance (Section 1.02(8)). However, the majority wrongfully concludes that under Section 4.05(f) of the Controlled Substances Act the knowing or intentional delivery (offer to sell) of marihuana is a class B misdemeanor if the actor delivers (offers to sell) one-fourth ounce or less without receiving remuneration. Such a conclusion is self-contradictory. It is clear that the legislature intended to reduce the punishment for the act of delivery of marihuana where one person made a Gift of one-quarter ounce or less of marihuana to another. This exception simply does not fit the transaction described in the instant indictment where there was an offer to Sell marihuana.
An examination of the Controlled Substances Act reveals that the word "sale" is not defined as it was under the former penal code. Under Article 725b, Section 1(10) V.A.P.C., 1925, sale was defined as including "barter, exchange, or gift, or offer therefor . . ." Therefore, under the former penal code the word "sale" had a technical meaning that includes any exchange or gift. However, the Controlled Substances Act does not define sale and it therefore is used with its normal meaning. It is apparent that the legislature, in enacting the Controlled Substances Act used the comprehensive term of "delivery" to cover all transfers and attempted transfers but used the phrase "offer to sell" with its normal meaning. The normal meaning of the word "sale" is "the transfer of ownership of and title to property from one person to another for a price." Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. It has also been defined as "a transfer of the property in a chattel for a consideration . . . a transfer of personal property at a fixed money price payable in cash or in goods." Ballantine's Law Dictionary (3rd Edition, 1969).
From this it should be apparent that an essential element of sale is the money price which is either fixed by agreement or capable of being ascertained therefrom. Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition, 1968).
From this examination it is readily apparent that the term "delivery" is far more comprehensive than the term sale, and when used with its normal meaning the term sale, or offer to sell, means a transfer for remuneration or offer to transfer for remuneration (and excludes a gift). Since it is clear that the legislature only intended to reduce the penalty for delivery of one-quarter ounce or less of marihuana where it was a gift, it is also clear that they did not intend to make an offer to sell one-quarter ounce or less of marihuana a misdemeanor where the offer to sell necessarily included an agreement for remuneration.
It appears that the objection which the majority has to this indictment would be cured if the indictment alleged that the defendant did knowingly and intentionally offer to sell a controlled substance, namely marihuana, for remuneration to R. L. Ferguson. An allegation that an offer to sell is for remuneration is redundant and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...in this indictment would only prevent prosecution of a higher degree offense had the 1981 amendments been valid. See Whitaker v. State, 572 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). All that would be necessary for this information to be proper would be for the instrument to allege either the amount inv......
-
Holland v. State
...court to be transferred to a court having jurisdiction of the misdemeanor offense of delivery of marihuana. In Whitaker v. State, 572 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), and Ex parte Osbourn, 574 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), it was stated that an indictment for delivery of marihuana that fails t......
-
Holliman v. State
...controlled substance within the meaning of the Act. See e.g., Pollan v. State, 612 S.W.2d 594, 597 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Whitaker v. State, 572 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). "Marihuana is a Schedule I controlled substance." Whitaker, 582 S.W.2d at 957. Grounds of error four and five are The ju......
-
Tovar v. State
...was for remuneration. Ex Parte Barcelo, Tex.Cr.App., 577 S.W.2d 499; Ex Parte Osbourn, Tex.Cr.App., 574 S.W.2d 568; Whitaker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 572 S.W.2d 956. Likewise, in order to allege a felony offense, an indictment for possession of marihuana must allege that the defendant possess......