Court Opinion

ID: 9774278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:13:44.619763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:05.017298
License: Public Domain

VOLLERS, Judge,
concurring.
The real question presented by this application for writ of habeas corpus is whether or not a conviction which is valid upon its face can be attacked by habeas corpus on the proposition that the prosecution should have been originally instituted under a special statute rather than a general statute. It is appellant’s contention that the prosecution should have been brought for welfare fraud under Article 695c, Section 34, Y.A.C.S. instead of under the provision of Article 31.03, Y.T.C.A., Penal Code.
It should be noted that the allegations in the indictment are sufficient to allege an offense under Section 31.03 of the Penal Code, and there is no suggestion that the evidence does not sustain those allegations. Therefore, the question presented here is not one of “no evidence” to sustain a collateral attack upon a conviction. See Ex parte Moffett, 542 S.W.2d 184. Since the attack made here by the petitioner is not upon the sufficiency of the evidence and does not suggest that there is no evidence to support the indictment under which he was convicted, the question of whether or not a statement of facts is presented along with the application is immaterial.
I concur in the result.