Court Opinion

ID: 9680523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:32:55.420384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.023682
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ODOM, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for attempted rape. On original submission a panel of the Court held the charge was fundamentally defective for omission of numerous elements of the offense. The dissent on rehearing relies on Finley v. State, *265527 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). The issue before the Court today was neither raised nor decided in Finley. The issue in Finley was specifically stated by the Court: “Appellant contends that the charge should have read, ‘A person is guilty of an attempt to commit rape where ... ”’1 In the more recent case of Stidham v. State, 590 S.W.2d 502 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), however, a charge on attempted aggravated rape was held fundamentally defective. The charge in Stidham, except for the element of aggravation, is in all material respects indistinguishable from the charge in this case. As in Stidham, the charge in this case is fundamentally defective.
The motion for rehearing is denied.

. The dissent quotes a general statement of the nature of Finley’s complaint. The specific fs-sue addressed in that case, however, was the need for a charge as quoted above.