Court Opinion

ID: 9674102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:23:04.327724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.589768
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot agree to the affirmance of this conviction and therefore enter my dissent.
The primary offense charged in the information was a violation of a regulatory measure — that is, the sale of intoxicating liquor in a wet area without a license or permit (Art. 666-4, Sec. (a), Vernon’s P.C.)
The act there made unlawful becomes so only by the absence of a permit or license. Hence, the offense created is a regulatory measure, only — that is, the regulating of the sale of liquor where it is lawful to sell.
The prior convictions alleged were for the violation of a prohibitory measure — that is, the sale of whisky on Sunday (Art. 666-25, Sec. (c), Vernon’s P.C.). The unlawful acts, there, were in violation of an absolute prohibition, for no person has the right to sell whisky on Sunday at any time, anywhere, or any place, with or without a permit.
Offenses involving a violation of a regulatory measure and offenses involving a violation of a prohibitory statute are entirely different, one from the other, and, therefore, are not and cannot be the same, or similar, under Art. 61, P.C.
It follows that the prior convictions here relied upon and used to enhance appellant’s punishment were not for the same or similar offense as that for which appellant was then upon trial. See: Andrews v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. R. 392, 228 S.W. 2d 173; Graham v. State, 159 Tex. Cr. R. 52, 260 S.W. 2d 887; Fullylove v. State, 159 Tex. Cr. R. 120, 261 S.W. 2d 711.
*335If this case is to be affirmed under the information in the case, then the above cases and all others to the same effect should be overruled, for the construction placed upon Art. 61, P.C., by the opinion in this case, authorizes enhancement of punishment in a misdemeanor case when a prior conviction for any misdemeanor offense is alleged and proved. This, Art. 61, P.C., expressly does not authorize.
The appellant’s motion for rehearing should be granted and and the judgment of conviction reversed and the cause remanded.