Court Opinion

ID: 9779278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:42:33.893506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:24.702595
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot agree to the reversal of this conviction. When the State charged that the appellant, who was an employee of Courtemanche, who had a wine and beer permit for premises located at 4656 Telephone Road and as such employee exposed her person, the appellant was effectively put on notice that the exposure occurred at 4656 Telephone Road.
The conclusion I here express is fortified by the fact that appellant filed no motion to quash the information and in no other manner made it known to the trial court that she was not informed as to where the offense was alleged to have occurred. Cf. Nevarez v, State, Tex.Cr. App., 503 S.W.2d 767.
DOUGLAS, J., joins in this dissent.