Martin v. State, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5685

Appellant charged by indictment with securing execution of a document by deception under Tex. Penal Code § 32.46(a)(1).
Value of affected property was at least $1,500 and less than $20,000, making it a state-jail felony under § 32.46(b)(4).
Indictment included enhancement paragraphs for prior felonies (securing execution of a document by deception and forgery).
In 2009, appellant pleaded guilty; trial court imposed two years’ confinement but suspended it and placed her on five years’ community supervision.
In 2010, State moved to revoke supervision; after hearing, court found the allegations true, revoked supervision, and ordered appellant to serve the two-year sentence.
Appellant challenges the indictment as defective, arguing it failed to charge the offense and thereby deprived the court of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the indictment charged the commission of an offense and vested jurisdiction.	Martin contends the indictment was not an indictment because it did not charge the commission of an offense.	State contends the instrument charges the offense; any defect does not negate jurisdiction.	Yes; instrument charges the offense and vests jurisdiction.

Teal v. State, 230 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (indictment must charge the commission of an offense to vest jurisdiction; defect be repairable pretrial)
Duron v. State, 956 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (defect language suggesting innocence does not defeat indictment; identifies offense charged)
Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (dicta: excessive language could render indictment defective; overruled by Gollihar)
Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (overruled Whetstone's defective-indictment dicta; focus on offense charged)
Cook v. State, 902 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (defining indictment as charging instrument identifying offense)