Finley v. State

Oct 29, 1975
50403
Reporters:
Before:
Morrison

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is delivery of marihuana; the punishment, two years.

The indictment, omitting I the ‍​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‍formal parts, alleges that appellant on or about October 19, 1973, did “. . . then and there knowingly and intentionally deliver to Oscar Salazar a controlled substance, to-wit: Marihuana . . . ” ‍​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‍Consequently, such indictment was drawn under the provisions of Section 4.05, Texas Controlled Substances Act (Article 4476-15, V.A.C.S.). The indictment is fundamentally defective in that it fails to allege the ‍​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‍amount of marihuana delivered or that the marihuana was delivered for remuneration, so as to reflect what punishment is involved, whether the offense is a misdemeanor or felony, or ‍​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‍whether the district court has jurisdiction. Saunders v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 528 S.W.2d 843 (delivered October 22, 1975); Tribble v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 525 S.W.2d 29; Medrano v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 524 S.W.2d 719; Wirges v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 521 S.W.2d 251; Mears v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 520 S.W.2d 380; Wilson v. ‍​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‍State, Tex.Cr.App., 520 S.W.2d 377.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.

DOUGLAS, J., not participating.