Case ID: sw2d_485/html/0565-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORRISON, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles D. DOSS et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 45722.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 18, 1972.
    Edith Roberts, Austin, for appellants.
    Robert O. Smith, Dist. Atty-, and Michael J. McCormick, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Hut-tash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
   OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is a bond forfeiture proceeding.

The appellants’ first four contentions are identical to the first four in Hall v. State, 485 S.W.2d 563 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), this day decided.

For the reasons stated therein we find no merit in them.

Appellants’ fifth contention is that there is a fatal variance between the offense named in the bond and the offense described in the judgment nisi. The bond recites the offense charged to be: “Possession of Hashish (Fel.)” while the judgment nisi recites “A felony, to wit: Unlawful Possession of a Narcotic Drug, to wit: Hashish”.

Art. 725b, Sec. 1, Subsecs. (13) and (14), Vernon’s Ann.P.C., makes the possession of hashish unlawful and makes hashish a narcotic drug.

Appellants’ sixth contention is that the final judgment recites an impossible date for the date of the judgment nisi (September 3, 1972). An examination of the record reflects that the judgment nisi was entered on September 3, 1970. In accordance with the provision of Art. 44.24, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., the judgment is reformed to recite that the judgment nisi was entered on September 3, 1970. Carr v. State, 9 Tex.App. 463, and Robinson v. State, 11 Tex.App. 309.

As reformed the judgment is affirmed.