Court Opinion

ID: 9760737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:11:14.628578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:16.522386
License: Public Domain

MEYERS, Judge,
dissenting.
I once heard the story of a boy who liked to break into offices when they were closed. He would rearrange the furniture, put the coffeepot on the couch, or make some other change to baffle and surprise the tenants when they returned to work. Usually, they called the police to report a burglary, but none of the cases were ever investigated very well because nothing was ever taken and no damage was ever done. Still, to his friends, the boy came to be known by the nickname “Burglary of a Building.”
I don’t know what ever happened to the boy. Perhaps he turned out to be a real burglar later in life. Maybe he was eventually caught and prosecuted under his childhood nickname. Maybe he never really existed at all. But what puzzles me most is how Judge Mansfield and those who join his opinion in this case can be so certain that there is no one in this world named “Burglary of a Building.”
The law requires that there be an arraignment in all felony cases. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.01. Presumably, there was an arraignment in this ease. “When the defendant is arraigned, his name, as stated in the indictment, shall be distinctly called[.]” Tex. Code of Crim.Proe. art. 26.07. Applicant in the instant cause must have been called by the name “Burglary of a Budding,” since that is the name stated in the indictment. If a defendant suggests at his arraignment that “he bears some name different than that stated in the indictment,” the indictment must be changed accordingly. Tex.Code Crim.Proe. art. 26.08. But if he does not suggest that his name is incorrectly given, or if he suggests that it is but refuses to give his true name, then the case may proceed to trial under the name given by the indictment, and the defendant may not thereafter complain of the defect. Tex.Code Crim.Proe. arts. 26.07, 26.09. In the instant cause, that must have been what happened because the record does not reflect that the indictment was ever corrected.
If it is applicant’s claim in the present proceeding merely that his name is not “Burglary of a Building,” then he is entitled to no relief because the indictment need not state the defendant’s name accurately in order to be an indictment within the meaning of the Constitution. At most, it must only state a name. If, on the other hand, it is applicant’s position that no one is actually named “Burglary of a Building,” then he has not only failed to prove his allegation, but would surely lose even if he had. The fact that no one in the world actually bears the name stated in an indictment is certainly irrelevant to its validity. Finally, if it is applicant’s contention that “Burglary of a Building” cannot be a name, he is simply wrong. Parents can name their children pretty much anything they want. Take, for example, Moon Unit Zappa, the actress daughter of rock legend Frank Zappa. If a person can be named Moon Unit, then surely a person can be named Burglary of a Building as well.
The writ application in this case thus avers no facts which, if true, would entitle applicant to relief, and it ought to be dismissed without any other explanation.