Court Opinion

ID: 9769350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:46:57.984003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:01.106044
License: Public Domain

OÑ RELATOR’S'-MOTIÓN FOR REHEARING1
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.'. -
In his motion fo.r . rehearing)'1 relator re-urges his cpntenfion'. that Article 1436^1,'. Se.c. 37, and ‘Article 143&-2 Vernon's, Ann. PIC. may be violated by the, commission of the same act or failure'to act and that the conflict is fatal','a different' punishment being provided.
Wg,.do not agree that,.Art-.. 1436-1,, Sec. 37, which:,requires that the .owner last named in the certificate..of title shall surrender such certificate to the State Highway Depantmeftt for cancellationfwhen.the motor vehicle to which such .certificate 'Of title has’beem.issued-'is “ ⅜ <*-. .junked, dismantled,' destroyed, ‘ or -its motor number changed ⅝⅞provides,;^piimish-; ment for the same act for which a different punishment is provided in .Art. 1436-2. The later statute provides that all certificates of title covering motor vehicles obtained for scrap disposal, resale of parts or any other form of salvage shall upon demand, be surrendered to the State Highway Department for cancellation. The former requires the surrender by the owner last named therein of the certificate of title when the vehicle is junked, etc., whether obtained for such purpose or not, no demand for such surrender being required.
■ If, however, the statutes do provide a different punishment for the same act, this would not render Art. 1436-2, - the later of the two statutes, invalid.
If invalid, the provisions of Art. 1436-2 above quoted, which relate to certificates of title, may be stricken leaving the statute as it relates to license plates complete in itself and capable of being executed in .accordance with the legislative intent, which statute must be sustained. Gilderbloom v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 471, 272 S.W.2d 106; Ex parte Levinson, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 606, 274 S.W.2d 76.
Relator’s second complaint is addressed to our holding that Art. 1436-2 was sufficiently definite as to the- persons who are included within such act.- ■ He •' urges that Roth v. United States, ,citéd- -in. -bur original opinion, does ¡not -sustain such holding. ■
.Be this, as it .may, it does not hold to the contrary and we entertain no doubt as to the correctness of our conclusion that Art. 1436-2, finder which relator is charged, is sufficiently definite and .is valid. The statute applies to persons who customarily, •when the opportunity is presented, obtain moto.r vehicles for scrap disposal, resale of parts or any other form of salvage. It does not apply to persons “who customarily engage in the business of obtaining motor ve-, hides” for any other purpose. It requires immediate removal of any unéxpired license plates from such motor vehicle.. It re'qfiires that such license plates be placed under lock- *335and key; that an inventory iist of such plates, showing the license number and the make and motor number of the motor vehicle from which such plates were removed, be maintained; and requires that upon demand the license plates and inventory lists shall be surrendered to the State Highway Department for cancellation. (Relator is charged with the violation of the last mentioned requirement of the statute.) The statute does not apply to license plates on a motor vehicle obtained for any purpose other than for scrap disposal or- resale of parts or other form of salvage.
Relator’s motion for rehearing is overruled.