Court Opinion

ID: 9767699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:23:51.055645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:32.459382
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Judge.
The charging portion of the complaint reads: “did then and there operate and drive a vehicle, to-wit: an automobile, upon a public street and highway of Texas, at the unreasonable, imprudent and unlawful speed of 72 miles per hour which was then and there a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing, at which time and place the prima facie reasonable and prudent speed limit applicable was 60 miles per hour, against the peace and dignity of the State.”
Appellant urges that the prosecution should be ordered dismissed because the complaint should have been quashed upon his motion.
The complaint is in all material respects identical with the complaint in Oliver v. State, 165 Texas Cr. Rep., 136, 305 S.W. 2d 604. The overruling of a motion to quash similar to that urged by appellant was the sole question presented in the Oliver case.
Construing the holding in Rowland v. State, 166 Texas Cr. Rep., 118, 311 S.W. 2d 831 (in which a second motion for rehearing was overruled the same day), the attack upon the complaint against Oliver was overruled and Oliver’s conviction was affirmed.
*446Upon authority of Oliver v. State and Rowland v. State, supra, we find the complaint sufficient.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.