From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holly v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Dec 2, 1970
460 S.W.2d 136 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)

Opinion

No. 43588.

December 2, 1970.

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Lubbock County, Denzil Bevers, J.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.


OPINION


The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.00.

Able State's Attorney points the Court's attention to the failure of the record to reflect a signature on the complaint and the failure of the complaint and information to contain the signature of the county attorney or an assistant county attorney of Lubbock County, Texas. Our attention is directed to the poinion of this Court in Carter v. State, 398 S.W.2d 290. Article 21.22, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. provides that: 'No information shall be presented until affidavit has been made by some credible person charging the defendant with an offense. The affidavit shall be filed with the information. It may be sworn to before the district or county attorney who, for the purpose, shall have the power to administer the oath, or it may be made before any officer authorized by law to administer oaths.'

It therefore appears from the record that the conviction is void and should be reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Holly v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Dec 2, 1970
460 S.W.2d 136 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)
Case details for

Holly v. State

Case Details

Full title:Robert Ray HOLLY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Dec 2, 1970

Citations

460 S.W.2d 136 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. State

Even if we accept the State's implicit contention that the July quashal order only extended to the paper then…

Mills v. State

In fact, it is not signed by an affiant or by an officer authorized to take oaths. Such an information has…