State v. Jose Balandrano
13-13-00536-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 31, 2015Background
- Jose Balandrano was charged by information with DWI (Class B misdemeanor) based on a complaint that tracked the arresting agency’s DWI complaint.
- The arresting agency’s “DWI Complaint” had a blank jurat; an investigator for the District Attorney’s office signed a separate sworn complaint/affidavit used to support the information.
- Balandrano moved to quash and dismiss, arguing the DWI complaint was unsigned (not sworn), the information was not sponsored by the arresting officer, and the information was predicated on an invalid complaint; he also noted a prior dismissal of the same complaint in a different county court.
- The trial court granted the motion to quash and dismiss; the State appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the complaint and information satisfied Articles 15.05 and 21.22 and whether the affiant needed firsthand knowledge or to be the arresting officer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the information was validly supported by a complaint when the arresting agency’s DWI complaint had a blank jurat and the DA investigator signed the sworn complaint | The State: an investigator’s sworn affidavit based on the agency report satisfies article requirements; affiant need not have firsthand knowledge | Balandrano: the DWI complaint was not sworn/credible, so the information is defective and required sponsorship by the arresting officer | Court: Valid — investigator’s affidavit satisfied articles 15.05 and 21.22; affiant need not have firsthand knowledge; information was properly supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells v. State, 516 S.W.2d 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (affiant need not have firsthand knowledge; complaint sufficient if valid on its face)
- Rose v. State, 799 S.W.2d 381 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990) (purpose of complaint is to apprise accused; affiant’s knowledge need not be firsthand)
- Pringle v. State, 732 S.W.2d 363 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987) (affiant may rely on police report; district attorney investigator may serve as complainant)
- Richards v. State, 305 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957) (supporting rule that affiant need not have personal knowledge)
- State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (motion to quash an information reviewed de novo)
- Chapa v. State, 420 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (distinguishing affidavit requirements for prosecutions from those for search warrants)