556 S.W.2d 332 | Tex. Crim. App. | 1977
OPINION
This is an appeal from a conviction for a violation of Proclamation No. E-18 of the Parks and Wildlife Commission.
Appellant’s sole contention is that Proclamation No. E-18 is void as unconstitutional. We need not address appellant’s contention since we hold that the complaint is fundamentally defective and reverse. See Article 40.09(13), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.
The appellant was arrested on November 23, 1975, for hunting on the Nueces River bed. The appellant admitted the commission of the offense, but has consistently urged the unconstitutionality of the proclamation as his defense.
Section 1.07 of Proclamation E-18 states in part:
*333 “Open seasons are given by their opening and closing dates and include all days between such opening and closing dates. There is no open season on game animals, game birds or fur-bearing animals on State game preserves, statutory wildlife sanctuaries, United States wildlife sanctuaries, within the corporate limits of any city and on public roads and highways and rights of way while such roads are under construction, and in State-owned river beds in Uvalde, Dimmit and Zavala Counties including, but not limited to, the Nueces and Frio Rivers.”
Thus, the elements of the relevant portion of Section 1.07 are as follows:
1) No open season for
a) game animals,
b) game birds, or
c) fur-bearing animals,
2) on (or in or within)
a) State game preserves,
b) statutory wildlife sanctuaries,
c) United States wildlife sanctuaries,
d) the corporate limits of any city,
e) public roads and highways and rights-of-way of such public roads and highways while such roads are under construction, or
f) State-owned river beds in Uvalde, Dimmit and Zavala Counties, including but not limited to, the Nueces and Frio Rivers.
The complaint, omitting the formal parts, states that the appellant:
“. . . did then and there unlawfully hunting in a closed season to wit: the Nueces.”
It is obvious that the complaint totally fails to allege what the appellant was hunting. Moreover, the word Nueces is by itself insufficient to allege where the appellant was hunting. Therefore, the State’s confession of error is well founded. The absence of what and where the appellant was illegally hunting renders the complaint fatally defective. American Plant Food Corporation v. State, 508 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
The conviction is reversed and the prosecution under this complaint is dismissed.
. The South Central Texas Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Proclamation No. E-18 was enacted under the authority of Article 978 J—1, Section 2. Cf. Section 61.054, V.T.C.A., Parks and Wildlife Code. Section 12.01 of the proclamation provided that the penalty for violation of the proclamation was a fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than two hundred dollars.
. As stated in note 1, supra, this proclamation was enacted under Article 978 J—I, Section 2. Article 978 J-I et seq. was referred to as the Uniform Wildlife Regulatory Act. See Acts