State v. Hector Garcia, 13-15-00235-CR

Background

Appellee Hector Garcia was indicted on three counts: Intoxication Manslaughter (Count 1), Accident Involving Personal Injury or Death (Count 2, Tex. Transp. Code §550.021), and Criminally Negligent Homicide (Count 3); all alleged February 8, 2014 in Victoria County, Texas.
Count 1 expressly alleged operation of a vehicle in a public place causing death; Count 2 alleged operation of a vehicle that struck and killed a pedestrian and alleged failure to render aid (referencing §550.023).
Defense counsel was appointed May 14, 2014; multiple pretrial motion settings occurred (Aug 2014, Oct 2014, Jan–Feb 2015). The defense announced ready for trial on Feb 25, 2015.
On May 4, 2015—the day trial was scheduled to begin—the defense filed a motion to quash Count 2, arguing the indictment failed to allege the offense occurred in a location listed in Tex. Transp. Code §550.001 and was otherwise defective/vague; the State responded May 5.
The trial court granted the motion to quash Count 2 verbally (May 5) and in a written order (May 13), citing failure to track §§550.021 and 550.023; the State appeals, arguing the motion was untimely and Count 2 was legally sufficient.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Garcia)	Held
1. Timeliness of motion to quash	Motion to quash must be presented at first opportunity and before announcing ready; defense filed after announcing ready—motion untimely and should not have been heard	Motion to quash filed on day of trial; trial court considered and granted it	Trial court granted the motion to quash; State contends this was reversible error as untimely under Neal
2. Whether trial court erred in hearing/granting untimely motion	Granting an untimely motion to quash after announcement of ready violates Neal and is plain error	Late filing justified (implicit in defense practice); court exercised discretion to consider motion	Trial court exercised its discretion to hear and granted the motion; State seeks reversal
3. Whether §550.001 locations are elements of §550.021	Locations listed in §550.001 (public place, etc.) are not elements of §550.021 and need not be alleged; Count 2 tracks statutory elements of §550.021	Count 2 failed to allege the location element required by statute and thus was defective	Trial court stated Count 2 did not track statutory language and quashed it; State argues that locations are not elements and quash was erroneous
4. Sufficiency / vagueness of Count 2 (including scrivener's error)	Count 2 facially alleges elements of §550.021, tracks statutory language; any scrivener's error (misreferencing §550.023) is correctable and does not render the count insufficient; constituent §550.023 needn't be pled in detail	Count 2 is vague and mis-pled (lists four ways but misreferences §550.023), failing to give adequate notice	Trial court quashed Count 2; State argues the count was sufficient, the error was clerical, and the indictment read as a whole alleged the offense occurred in a public place

Key Cases Cited

Neal v. State, 150 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (motion to quash must be presented at first opportunity and before announcing ready for trial)
Smith v. State, 309 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (charging-instrument sufficiency is a legal question reviewed de novo)
Steen v. State, 640 S.W.2d 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (elements of failure-to-stop-and-render-aid offense under predecessor statute)
Hammett v. State, 578 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (indictment for a greater offense need not allege constituent-offense elements)
Rousseau v. State, 396 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (indictment that tracks statutory language generally satisfies notice requirements)
Lehman v. State, 792 S.W.2d 82 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (only one statutory means need be proved when several are alleged)
Sanchez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (interpretation of art. 45.019 in Justice/Municipal court context; not controlling for felony/district court procedure)