Case Name: Ambrose Stubblefield v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-29
Citations: 94 Tex. Crim. 444
Docket Number: No. 7158
Parties: Ambrose Stubblefield v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 444–446

Head Matter:
Ambrose Stubblefield v. The State.
No. 7158.
Decided November 29, 1922.
Rehearing granted May 30, 1923.
1. — Theft—Misdemeanor—Complaint—Information.
Where the prosecution is carried on by information, but no complaint was found in the record upon which it should have been based, the prosecution cannot proceed. However, it appearing that proper complaint had been filed, the appeal is reinstated.
2. — Same—Continuance—Diligence Used.
While the diligence used was not perfect, yet under the peculiar facts in the instant case it is deemed sufficient, and the continuance should have been granted, and a refusal to do so was reversible error.
Appeal from the County Court of Hopkins. Tried below before the Honorable Homer L. Pharr.
Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft; penalty, 30 days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Dial, Melson, Davidson & Brim, for appellant.
Cited cases in opinion.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
offense is theft, a misdemeanor; punishment fixed at confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days.
The prosecution is founded upon an information, but no complaint is found. The complaint is essential; it is jurisdictional. The prosecution cannot proceed without it. Code of Crim. Proc., Art. 479; Diltz v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep. 127; Vernon's Tex. Crim. Stat., Vol. 2, p. 236, note 3.
The judgment of conviction is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Dismissed.