OPINION
This is аn appeal from a conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Punishment was assessed by the court at four years.
On Jаnuary 16,1976, appellant waived his right to prosecution by indictment, trial by jury and appeal and pled guilty to an information charging him with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. After he was convicted, he did not waive his right to appеal. On January 20,1976, he filed a notice of appeal dated January 16, 1976, but the court disallоwed the appeal.
*310 This Court, in a per сuriam opinion dated February 23, 1977, held that the wаiver of appeal was ineffective because he did not waive his right to appeal after he had been convictеd. The cause is now properly before us.
Appellant’s sole contention is that thе information is fundamentally defective beсause it fails to describe the motor vehiсle alleged to have been operated by him. The information alleges, in substance, that on December 2, 1975, appellant “intentionally and knowingly operate[d] a motоr vehicle owned by John R. Eagle, without his effective consent.”
V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 31.07, provides, in part:
“(a) A person commits an оffense if he intentionally or knowingly operаtes another’s boat, airplane, or mоtor-propelled vehicle without the effective consent of the owner. . . . ”
The information in the instant case tracks the languаge of the statute and thus charges an offеnse. Appellant’s contention regarding the description of the motor vehicle relates to the certainty of the allegаtions and notice. Complaints regarding the sufficiency of an indictment or information must be rаised in the trial court. Articles 21.21(7) and 27.09(2), V.A.C.C.P.;
Stribling v. State,
“One tire of the value of ten dollars” was held sufficient in Hendley v. State,313 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Cr.App.1958); “one camera” was sufficient in Beland v. State,160 Tex.Cr.R. 351 ,271 S.W.2d 430 (1954); “one cattle guard” was sufficient in Johnson v. State,168 Tex.Cr.R. 177 ,324 S.W.2d 221 (1959). The allegation of “a railroad bridge span” was held not subjeсt to collateral attack for the first timе on appeal. Crye v. State,391 S.W.2d 57 (Tex.Cr.App.1965).
The offense was сharged in plain and intelligible language with such certainty as to have enabled appellant to know what offense he was called upon to defend against. No error is reflected.
Wilson v. State,
The judgment is affirmed.