Court Opinion

ID: 9654760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:49:49.548705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:13.208827
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
WOODLEY, Judge.
Appellant suggests that, if our original disposition of his *148appeal stands, we make it “clear that the offense of swindling by check can be tried under a straight theft indictment.”
It is well settled that the offense of theft by false pretext defined in Art. 1413 P.C. may be prosecuted under an indictment charging theft. See McCain v. State, 143 Tex. Cr. R. 521, 158 S.W. 2d 796, Berg v. State, 2 Tex. Appeals 148; Hawkins v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 407, 126 S.W. 268.
Any question as to the effect of our holding in DeBlanc v. State, cited in our original opinion, should be resolved by reference to Article 1549 P.C. as amended by Acts of the 48th Legislature, (1943) p. 362, Ch. 240, Sec. 1 (Art 1549 Vernon’s Ann. P.C.) which reads as follows:
“Where property, money, or other articles of value enumerated in the definition of swindling, are obtained in such manner that the acquisition thereof constitutes both swindling and some other offense, the party thus offending shall be amendable to prosecution at the state’s election for swindling or for such other offense committed by him by the unlawful acquisition of said property in such manner.”
The evidence being deemed sufficient to sustain conviction for theft by false pretext, it is immaterial that prosecution might have been successfully maintained for swindling.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.