Case Name: STUBBLEFIELD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-29
Citations: 252 S.W. 563
Docket Number: No. 7158
Parties: STUBBLEFIELD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 252
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
STUBBLEFIELD v. STATE.
(No. 7158.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 29, 1922.
On State’s Motion for Rehearing, May 30, 1923.)
1. Criminal law &wkey;>209 — Complaint essential to prosecution Tor misdemeanor.
Under Code Cr. Proc. art. 479, a prosecution for a misdemeanor cannot proceed without a complaint.
On State’s Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;9l7(2) — Diligence held sufficient to require new trial for refusal to continue.
A showing that defendant had twice had process issued for an absent witness, whose testimony would impeach a state’s witness, and support defendant’s testimony, but deputy sheriff had inadvertently .destroyed the subpmna, and witness, though not subpoenaed, intended to come, but sickness prevented her • from doing so, held sufficient to require a new trial for refusal to grant continuance.
Appeal from Hopkins County Court; Homer L. Pharr, Judge.
Ambrose Stubblefield was convicted of theft, and he appealed.
Reversed and remanded.
Dial, Melson, Davidson & Brim, of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is theft, a misdemeanor; punishment fixed at confinement in the county jail for a period of 30 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 Cr. Proc., art. 479; Diltz v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 127, 119 S. W. 92; Vernon's Tex. Grim. Stat. val. 2, p. 236, note 3.
Tlie judgment of conviction is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
cS^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes