Court Opinion

ID: 9681997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:03:13.837819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.925972
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant insists that, inasmuch as the owner of the automobile did not present the check for payment to the bank upon which it was drawn, the state’s case fails and the facts are insufficient to sustain the conviction, under the authority of Mayes v. State, 145 Tex. Cr. R. 295, 167 S. W. 2d 745.
Proof of presentment for payment of a check is required only when the presumption provided in Art. 567b, Vernon’s P. C., are relied upon by the state.
Here, the owner of the automobile proved directly that the appellant had no account with the bank upon which the check was drawn. The state, therefore, did not rely upon the presumptions arising by reason of nonpayment of the check after presentation for payment.
We remain convinced that the facts warrant the conviction.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.