Court Opinion

ID: 9766590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:54:14.153431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:23.910882
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
Appellant, in his motion for rehearing, in support of his contention that the allegations of the indictment were insufficient to show that the district court of Kendall County had jurisdiction over the proceedings in which it was charged the perjury was committed, emphasizes the misspelling of the word “defraud” in the allegation describing the offense with which he was charged.
The indictment alleged that appellant was duly and legally charged by indictment “with having obtained money, goods, with intent to degraud, by giving, drawing check, draft or order without sufficient funds, as alleged in the indictment, etc.”
The misspelling of words does not render invalid an otherwise good indictment if the sense is not affected and the meaning cannot be mistaken. Branch’s Ann. P.C., sec. 490, p. 254; 24 Tex. Jur., sec. 25, p. 622; Florence v. State, 160 Tex. Cr. R. 591. 273 S.W. 2d 631.
*233We do not think the misspelling of the word affected the meaning of the indictment or that the appellant was misled thereby. The allegations in the indictment clearly show that it was meant to allege that appellant was charged with the offense of obtaining property with intent to defraud, and were sufficient to charge the offense.
We remain convinced that the jurisdiction of the court in which it was charged that the perjury was committed was sufficiently alleged in the indictment, established upon the trial, and that appellant’s testimony that he never had been previously convicted of a felony was upon a material issue in the trial.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.