Court Opinion

ID: 9675641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:00:15.824584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:36.285116
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority grants relief in this cause because the indictment alleged possession of “Hashish” rather than “tetrahydrocannabi-nol.” Such a collateral attack should not be allowed in light of the language of Section 2.02 of the Controlled Substances Act (V.A. C.S. Article 4476-15). That section provides:
“The controlled substances listed or to be listed in the schedules in Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V and Penalty Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 are included by whatever official, common, usual, chemical, or trade name they may be designated.” (Emphasis supplied)
Tetrahydrocannabinol is the chemical name for that substance usually and commonly known as hashish. Although such a pleading may be subject to a motion to quash, it is not fundamentally defective and is not subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus. See Anderson v. State, 615 S.W.2d 745 1981).
To hold otherwise is to ignore the clear language and intent of Section 2.02, supra.
I respectfully dissent.