This is аn original habeas corpus proceeding аttacking as void a conviction in the County Court of Cаllahan County in a prosecution which was instituted in a justiсe court in said county, the complaint alleging that the relator herein “did then and there unlawfully and wilfully Pass-insufficient Clearance against the peacе and dignity of the State”.
Trial de novo in the County Court resultеd in a conviction with punishment assessed at a fine of $10, from which no appeal lies. Art. 53 C.C.P.
Relator sought аnd obtained the issuance of writ of habeas corpus from this Court following his arrest upon capias pro fine issued to enforce the judgment of the County Cоurt.
If there is a valid law under which a complaint could hаve been drawn for the act charged, any irregularity or defect of commission or omission which would rеnder the pleading voidable and not void would not entitle the defendant to relief by habeas corpus. Branch’s Ann. P.C. 2d Ed., Sec. 261, and cases cited.
We have been furnished with the record of the trial de novo in County Court from which we find that the relator herein was tried and fоund guilty of violating Art. 6701d, Sec. 56, of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways, the gist of the offense being the driving of a vehicle to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle prоceeding in the same direction, while the left side was not clear of on-coming traffic.
In Ex Parte Merriell,
We are aware of no statute which makes it an offense tо “unlawfully and wilfully Pass-insufficient Clearance”, and it is clear that if there were such a statute it would be void for indefiniteness.
We do not deem it necessary to review the holding of this Court in Ex Parte Jonischkies,
We hold that where, as here, no facts are alleged in the complaint which, if true, constitute an offense, and no facts are alleged which show that offensе was meant to be charged, a final conviction under such complaint is void and may be attacked by habeas corpus.