Case Name: Harvey Lee NICHOLS & William Anthony Dugan, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1981-11-10
Citations: 653 S.W.2d 768
Docket Number: Nos. 68360, 68595
Parties: Harvey Lee NICHOLS & William Anthony Dugan, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: Before ODOM, TOM G. DAVIS and DALLY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 653
Pages: 768–775

Head Matter:
Harvey Lee NICHOLS & William Anthony Dugan, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Nos. 68360, 68595.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Panel No. 3.
Nov. 10, 1981.
Rehearing Denied July 13, 1983.
Melvyn Carson Bruder, J. Stephen Cooper, Charles L. Caperton, Dallas, for appellants.
Joseph Thigpen, Dist. Atty., Haskell, Gerald C. Carruth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert Huttash, State’s Atty. and Alfred Walker, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ODOM, TOM G. DAVIS and DALLY, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
ODOM, Judge.
These are appeals from convictions for engaging in organized criminal activity. Appellants were jointly indicted with six other co-defendants. After entering guilty pleas to the court both of these appellants were assessed punishment in accordance with plea bargains. Nichols' punishment was assessed at three years and a $600 fine. Dugan's punishment was six years and a $600 fine. The same grounds of error are presented in both of these appeals. They complain of adverse rulings on pretrial motions to quash the indictment. See Art. 44.02, V.A.C.C.P.
The first ground of error asserts fourteen different contentions attacking the indictment. A motion to quash an indictment must be in writing. Art. 27.10, V.A.C.C.P.; Faulks v. State, 528 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex.Cr.App.). Only ten of the fourteen grounds of attack were included in appellants written motions to quash. We therefore will only discuss the arguments made in those ten contentions.
The indictment in this case alleged:
"IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
"The Grand Jury for the County of Stonewall, State of Texas, duly selected, impaneled, sworn, charged and organized as such at the May Term, A.D., 1980, of the 39th Judicial District Court of said County, upon their oaths present in and to said Court, that WILLIAM ANTHONY DUGAN, HARVEY LEE NICHOLS, ELMER GLENN STURGIS, THOMAS JOSEPH ROCHE, JR., STEPHEN ALAN ROCHE, JIMMY WAYNE BURROWS, GREGORY ALAN WICKERS-HAM, AND GLENN EUGENE STE-WERT, hereinafter styled the defendants, on or about the 8th day of May, A.D., 1979, and before the presentment of this indictment, in said County and State, did then and there with the intent to establish, maintain, and participate in a combination, and in the profits of a combination, conspire to commit the offense of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, to-wit: marihuana, and did then and there agree among themselves, and with each other, to engage in conduct constituting said offense, namely, to intentionally and knowingly deliver to a person or persons unknown to the Grand Jury more than four (4) ounces of marihuana, and in pursuance of such agreement and in furtherance thereof, the said defendants performed overt acts as follows, to-wit:
"(1) On or about May 8, 1979, THOMAS JOSEPH ROCHE, JR., telephoned Steven Howard Bockstein from the Holiday Inn South in Austin, Texas, for the purpose of using Bockstein's pickup;
"(2) On or about May 8, 1979, Steven Howard Bockstein met with STEVEN ALAN ROCHE in Denton, Texas, to obtain a key to an Apt. # 229 located at 3815 Ichabod Circle in Arlington, Texas;
"(3) On or about May 8, 1979, Steven Howard Bockstein met and picked up JIMMY WAYNE BURROWS at DFW Airport in Irving, Texas;
"(4) On or about May 8, 1979, JIMMY WAYNE BURROWS traveled from Arlington, Texas, to approximately ten (10) miles northeast of Jayton, Texas, in Steven Howard Bockstein's pickup;
"(5) On or about May 8, 1979, ELMER GLENN STURGIS, arrived on Flight 961, Ozark airlines from Joplin, Missouri, to DFW Airport, Irving, Texas;
"(6) On or about May 8,1979, GREGORY ALAN WICKERSHAM, STEPHEN ALAN ROCHE, and THOMAS JOSEPH ROCHE, JR., Met in Apt. # 229 at 3815 Ichabod Circle in Arlington, Texas; and
"(7) On or about May 8, 1979, WILLIAM ANTHONY DUGAN, GLENN EUGENE STEWERT, HARVEY LEE NICHOLS and ELMER GLENN STUR-GIS, met together in Stonewall County, Texas, with more than four (4) ounces of marihuana;
"AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE."
Appellants first assert this indictment does not show that they were part of the conspiracy. They are specifically named in part (7) of the indictment, which alleges the particular overt act by which the State would show their participation in the alleged combination. The first contention is without merit.
They next assert it was improper to allege the persons to whom the marihuana would be delivered was unknown to the grand jury in that such other persons were known to the grand jury. No citation to the record supports this assertion and, in fact, one of the appellants testified at the guilty plea proceeding that not even he knew who would buy the marihuana. This contention is overruled.
Appellants also assert the indictment does not properly allege conspiracy under V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 15.02. Such an allegation is not required in a prosecution for engaging in criminal activity, V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 71.02. The phrase "conspires to commit" used in Sec. 71.02, supra, does not refer to the offense of conspiracy defined in Sec. 15.02, supra, but refers instead to the definition of "conspires to commit" set out in V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 71.01(b).
Next appellants argue that the State in this prosecution was apparently seeking to invoke the punishment provisions of Sec. 71.02(c), supra, but the indictment fails to make the necessary allegations. We disagree. Sec. 71.02(c) provides:
"(c) Conspiring to commit an offense under this section is of the same degree as the most serious offense listed in Subdivisions (1) through (5) of Subsection (a) of this section that the person conspired to commit."
Appellants argue that the phrase "conspiring to commit an offense under this section" means conspiring to commit engaging in organized criminal activity. This reading ignores the rest of this subsection, which makes it clear that the offense "that the person conspired to commit" refers to offenses "listed in Subdivisions (1) through (5)," i.e., in this case, delivery of marihuana. The contention is without merit.
In the next argument presented, appellants contend the indictment fails to allege any overt acts were performed. We find the language "the said defendants performed overt acts as follows," with the specific overt acts then listed, is sufficient to allege specific overt acts and that those acts were performed. We overrule this contention.
Appellants also argue the indictment is duplicitous, alleging engaging in organized criminal activity, delivery of marihuana, and possession of marihuana. Apparently appellants are relying on the fact the allegations of specific overt acts also happen to be allegations of other offenses. When the allegation of one offense necessarily includes another offense, no violation of the rule against duplicitous pleading occurs. See Faulks v. State, 528 S.W.2d 607.
Another contention raised is that the indictment fails to allege that there were at least four other people involved in the combination. The indictment names eight individuals as participants in the combination. This was sufficient.
Finally, they argue that the indictment fails to allege a culpable mental state and fails to allege they had knowledge that there were at least four other people in the combination. The indictment alleges they acted "with intent to establish, maintain, and participate in a combination ." This is the culpable mental state provided by Sec. 71.02, supra. The indictment is sufficient.
The first ground of error is overruled.
In the remaining ground of error appellants contend their motions to quash the indictment should have been granted on grounds that Sec. 71.02, supra, is unconstitutional. Again, a multifarious attack is launched under a single ground of error. First they assert the adoption of Sec. 71.02 by the Legislature was an unconstitutional attempt to amend the Controlled Substances Act (Art. 4476-15 et seq., V.A.C.S.), in that the caption of the bill did not give notice of this. Appellants do not state what part of the Controlled Substances Act has been altered by adoption of See. 71.02. No offense under the Controlled Substances Act has been altered and no punishment under that act has been affected. This first contention is without merit.
Next, appellants assert the language of Sec. 71.02 is vague. It is argued that "deliver" and "controlled substance" are not defined in the Penal Code. We think it obvious that the references of Sec. 71.02(a)(5) to "unlawful manufacture, delivery, dispensation, or distribution of a controlled substance or dangerous drug, or unlawful possession of a controlled substance or dangerous drug through forgery, fraud, misrepresentation, or deception" are necessarily references to those offenses as defined in the Controlled Substances Act and the Dangerous Drugs Act. We perceive no vagueness.
Appellants also argue Sec. 71.-02(a)(5) is vague in that it is not clear whether the phrase "through forgery, fraud, misrepresentation, or deception" applies only to unlawful possession or also to unlawful manufacture, delivery, dispensation and distribution. We find that a plain reading of the statute limits the questioned phrase to unlawful possession. Cf. Garza v. State, 522 S.W.2d 693 (Tex.Cr.App.).
Finally, appellants assert that the statute is unconstitutional because punishment may be determined only by consulting statutes outside the Penal Code. Although the punishment ranges provided in Sec. 71.-02(b) and (c) depend on the punishment range of the object offense and the object offense in this case is defined in the Controlled Substances Act, the fact remains that the punishment applicable to an offense under Sec. 71.02 is fixed under Chapter 12 of the Penal Code. The contention is without merit.
The ground of error is overruled.
The judgments are affirmed.
Before the court en banc.