Ronald Parks v. State
01-15-00737-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 30, 2015Background
- Parks appeals the trial court’s denial of his Motion to Quash and Exception to the Substance of the Information charging Interference with Public Duties under Texas Penal Code 38.15.
- Information alleged Parks unlawfully, with criminal negligence, failed to obey a lawful order while a peace officer performed duties, interrupting Officer Gamble.
- Parks was tried by jury, found guilty, and sentenced to 30 days in Harris County Jail; a timely Notice of Appeal was filed.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash on August 11, 2015, and Parks challenges the sufficiency and specificity of the charging instrument under Articles 21.03, 21.04, 21.11, 21.15, and 21.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Appellant argues the information lacks certainty and fails to allege a concrete act and the manner and means by which Parks interfered with the officer, thereby failing to charge an offense.
- The State contends the information tracks the statute and should be sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the information sufficiently charge the offense under Chapter 21? | Parks argues it fails to allege a concrete act and manner/means with reasonable certainty. | State contends the information tracks the statute and informs defense of the charge. | No; the information lacks certainty and fails to specify act, manner, and means. |
| Is criminal negligence properly alleged under Article 21.15 in this charging instrument? | Parks asserts the information does not specify the act constituting criminal negligence. | State maintains reliance on the statutory standard of criminal negligence. | No; it does not allege a specific act relied upon to constitute criminal negligence. |
| Does the information provide sufficient notice of the manner and means of the offense? | Parks shows failure to state how the failure to obey operated as interference. | State argues the failure to obey a lawful order suffices as the act. | No; the manner and means are not defined, creating fatal ambiguity. |
| Does failure to plead the order and the act in concrete terms violate Article 21.11 or related provisions? | Parks contends lack of notice and proof of essential elements. | State argues statutory language provides notice of the offense. | No; the instrument does not provide sufficient notice or the elements required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Castillo v. State, 689 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (pleading defect where manner and means not alleged; informs defense based on Castilllo analysis)
- Cruise v. State, 587 S.W.2d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (information must describe how the offense was committed; mere statutory language insufficient)
- Campbell v. State, 113 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. App. Tyler 2000) (indictment must give precise notice of the offense and manner/means; supports quash relief)
- Amaya v. State, 551 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (indictment must specify the false statement; lack of specificity violates due process)