Court Opinion

ID: 9681516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:51:57.869494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.300522
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
BELCHER, Judge.
Appellant contends that the judgments introduced in evidence to show the alleged prior convictions are invalid because of the failure to show that the informations, introduced in evidence, supporting said judgments were based upon proper complaints.
Since the judgments did not identify the offenses for which the accused was convicted, the informations were introduced for this purpose.
In 12 Texas Jur. 709, Sec. 348, it is stated that:
“In misdemeanor cases, it is not necessary that the judgment show eo nominee an offense of which the accused has been convicted, or specify the particular count upon which a conviction has been based.”
See, also, Fowler v. State, 144 Texas Cr. R. 382, 162 S.W. 2d 969.
The informations upon which said judgments were based were admissible to identify the offenses for which the accused was alleged to have been convicted. Koger v. State, 73 Texas Cr. R. 448, 165 S.W. 577.
Under the facts here presented, we overrule the contention that the state was under the necessity of offering the complaints upon which the informations were based.
By Bill of Exception No. 1, appellant contends that it being conceded that appellant’s house was located in Justice Precinct *633No. 1, Dallas County, where the alleged unlawful possession of the whiskey was shown according to the state’s evidence, the court erred in charging the jury that said precinct was a wet area, because the evidence shows that a part of said precinct was wet and a part was dry, and that the issue of fact as to whether said possession was in the wet or dry area of said precinct should have been submitted to the jury.
The court’s qualification to this bill, which appellant accepted, states that no evidence was offered during the trial by either the state or the defendant as to the wet or dry status of Justice Precinct No. 1, and that it “was raised by the defendant on motion for new trial, and the evidence offered was offered for the first time on- the motion for a new trial.” The qualification is borne out by the statement of facts.
In the absence of evidence raising an issue as to the dry status of the area in question at the time of the alleged offense, no error is shown by the failure of the court to charge thereon.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.