Case Name: James Morris McGEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1984-11-21
Citations: 681 S.W.2d 31
Docket Number: No. 393-84
Parties: James Morris McGEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 681
Pages: 31–33

Head Matter:
James Morris McGEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 393-84.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Nov. 21, 1984.
Lawrence B. Mitchell, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Donald G. Davis, N. R. Stevenson and Jane Jackson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
THOMAS G. DAVIS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of forgery by passing and the jury assessed punishment at ten years in the Texas Department of Corrections.
In his appeal to the court below, appellant contended that, since he received nothing of value in exchange for the instrument, it cannot be said that he "passed" that instrument. The Court of Appeals, relying on Landry v. State, 583 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) (opinion on original submission), held that "pass," as used in the statute, means to offer. On rehearing, Landry, supra, was reversed due to a fundamentally defective charging instrument, and only for that reason.
We reaffirm the holding in Landry, supra, on original submission, i.e., that, for Section 32.21(a)(1)(B), Vernon's Ann.P.C., purposes, the word "pass" means to offer the instrument and does not require a showing that the defendant actually received consideration in exchange for the instrument.
Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review is refused.