Case ID: tex-crim_169/html/0152-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BELCHER, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nolan Frank Mitcham v. State
    No. 31,592.
    March 9, 1960
    
      Stephenson and Stephenson, by Marlin Thompson, Orange, for appellant.
    
      Feagin W. Windham, District Attorney, James A. Morris, Assistant District Attorney, Orange, and Leon Douglas, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.
   BELCHER, Judge.

The conviction is for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated under 802b, P.C.

It appears from the agreement of the attorneys for both the state and the appellant and the certificate of approval by the trial judge that the statement of facts does not contain all of the evidence adduced on the trial, hence the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be appraised. Dominguez v. State, 164 Tex. Cr. Rep. 571, 303 S.W. 2d 384; Stockman v. State, 164 Tex. Cr. Rep. 469, 303 S.W. 2d 410.

This conviction rests upon the following verdict of the Jury:

“We the jury, find the defendant “guilty” as charged in the indictment, and assess his punishment at confinement in the County Jail for 45 days and/or by fine of 200.00 Dollars.”

The punishment which the law authorizes for the offense charged could have been 45 days in jail; or it could have been a fine of $200; or it could have been both 45 days in jail and a $200 fine. The and/or in the verdict renders it uncertain which of these punishments the jury intended to assess and for that reason it cannot be upheld. Allen v. State, 138 Tex. Cr. Rep. 303, 136 S.W. 2d 323; Cobb v. State, 139 Tex. Cr. Rep. 337, 139 S. W. 2d 272; James v. State, 139 Tex. Cr. Rep. 208, 139 S.W. 587; Jackson v. State, 168 Tex. Cr. Rep. 436, 328 S.W. 2d 765.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court