Court Opinion

ID: 9684491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:59:04.922742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:56.427533
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ONION, Presiding Judge.
For the first time on rehearing the appellant contends: “The indictment is void for the reason that it charges an offense in the year ‘one thousand nine hundred’ which date is beyond the Statute of Limitations and the facts fail to prove said date.”
It is appellant’s position that this unassigned ground of error presents fundamental error requiring review “in the interest of justice.” See Article 40.09 § 13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.
Omitting the formal parts, the indictment, in part, alleges the grand jury “ . upon their oaths do present in and to the Criminal District Court No. 5 of Dallas County, at the April Term, A.D.1970, of said court that one John Gerard Jackson on or about the 16th day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Nine *567Hundred and - in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully possess a narcotic drug, to wit: marihuana . . . . ”
Article 21.02, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. (Requisites of an Indictment), provides, in part:
“An indictment shall be deemed sufficient if it has the following requisites:

6. The time mentioned must be some date anterior to the presentment of the indictment, and not so remote that the prosecution of the offense is barred by limitation.

Thus, “[w]henever the offense is subject to limitation, an indictment or information must show that it was committed within the period of limitation. . . . ” 30 Tex.Jur.2d Indictment and Information § 36, p. 602.
“If the date alleged as the date of the commission of the offense shows the offense to be barred by limitation, then the indictment, information, or complaint so alleging is bad.” 1 Branch’s Ann.P.C., 2d Ed., § 456, p. 456.
Such an indictment may be saved only if factors tolling the statute of limitations are alleged. Donald v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 252, 306 S.W.2d 360 (1956). Parr v. State, 307 S.W.2d 94 (Tex.Cr.App.1957).
The indictment in the instant case was presented on June 22, 1970, and the statute of limitations for the offense of unlawful possession of marihuana is 3 years. See Article 12.04, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. The indictment alleged the offense occurred on May 16 in the year “One Thousand Nine Hundred and -.” No factors tolling the statute of limitations were alleged.
As in Bradford v. State, 62 Tex.Cr.R. 424, 138 S.W. 119 (1911), where the indictment alleged “one thousand nine hundred and-,” the date alleged in the instant indictment as the date of the commission of the offense shows the offense to be barred by limitation.
Such allegation is fatal to the indictment. Dixon v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 279 S.W.2d 868, 869 (1955); Bayless v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 123 S.W.2d 354 (1939). The fact that the error or omission is a clerical one is immaterial. See Article 21.02, supra, n. 28, and cases there cited.
The order affirming the conviction is set aside, the appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment is reversed and the cause ordered dismissed.