Parsons v. State
429 S.W.2d 476
Tex. Crim. App.
1968
Check Treatment

*1 error, remaining ground XI, appellant insists that state, presenting permitting erred chief, testimony

its case offer offenses.

traneous that,

The record reflects over permitted

objection, show the state was testimony ‍​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍women that on of two question raping

night and before up

prosecutrix, appellant had driven their propositioned

behind vehicles and

them for dates. court admitted

testimony identity. on the issue of While testimony time the admitted made, identity

issue had been a subse-

quent appellant issue was made

testimony. record, court did Under

not err in admitting testimony exception

issue as an identity

general prohibiting proof extra- rule

neous The tes- transactions offenses.

timony of the two women was also admis-

siblе to testimony given discredit ‍​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍to the effect that on the

night question he did not know what doing. Evidence, See: 23 Tex.Jur.2d

309-304, Secs. cases

therein cited. is affirmed. PARSONS, Appellant,

Glenn Carlton Millеr, Hous- Wiebusch, Buck C. W. C. Texas, Appellee. The STATE of ton, appellant. only), (on No. 41245. Vance, Atty., Dist. S. Carol James ‍​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍Dist. Asst. Heacock, Brough and Fred Appeals Texas. Douglas, B. Attys., and Leon 8,May Atty., Austin, for the State. State’s July 10, Rehearing Denied

BELCHER, Judge. uрon com- prosecution herein was After plaint filed in court. *2 477 between in the distance the appealed in that court conviction upon the Telephone Road and county court. high- and Freeway, public street County rendered Judgment there situate, then did and way there Harris at Law No. 3 of Court at a motor said vehicle drive guilty of finding the County greater than was which at a assessing punishment and his speeding, then the conditions under prudent and appel- From this finе of $101. and having regard to the actual existing this court. gave notice of lant of 50 potential and in excess hazards per 60 miles per hour, to-wit: miles complaint in the record In the contained hour, speed in said the lawful maximum the affiant. No person as no and said location of said vehicle district space provided appears name in the blank miles hour. being 50 the affiant at the com- for the name of complaint the form. No mencement of the “Against peace dignity the and of affiant. signed complaint name is as State. contains name affiant. . Carоlyn T. Farber the complaint comply not with does me “Sworn to and subscribed before ‍​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍4, provisions 15.05, of Art. Sec. Vernon’s Oсtober, of day this 19th C.C.P., require Ann. that: H. Martin signed by “It must be the (complaint) Deputy Corporation of the Clerk Court by writing affixing affiant namе or Houston, City County, of Harris his mark.” Texas” out, For the reason the com- plaint is void. signature at bottom the affi- of complaint appears davit or to be the facsim- The judgment prose- is reversed and stamped signature Carolyn ilе T. Far- of cution is ordered dismissed. ber. complaint has not been attacked quash exception. motion to or ON STATE’S MOTION REHEAR- FOR ING There the record which support a conclusion this court WOODLEY, Presiding Judge. that Carolyn actually T. Farber did not place signature affidavit or holding were error complaint. did complaint filed requirement comply with the complаint signed by affiant “must be The use stamp producing of by writing affixing name or his mark.” original signature facsimile of an in sign ing legal upheld by documents been has reads: State, this v. court. Stork 114 Tex.Cr.R.

“I, _, 398, 733; 23 solemnly parte Spencer, swear Ex do 171 339, believe, partе Tex.Cr.R. good that I reason 349 S.W.2d Ex have Britton, Tex.Cr.App., 382 do believe that Carlton Parsons on S.W.2d 264. Glenn 1966, or about 2nd filing before thе this making We were in giving also

complaint, incorporated weight limits within the absence the name County Carolyn affiant T. Fаrber in the Harris, driv- Upton State, State of while ‍​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍33 Tex.Cr. vehicle, 231, operating R. State, a motor with- 26 S.W. Taul v. Tex. 1965, C.C.P., Dunn in effect at thе Cr.App., 61 27.14 S.W. 89, 158 S.W. 300. time trial in Crim- Tex.Cr.R. 3, inal 167, 169 Tex.Cr.R. Birdwell court, provided before that “the the error in we held that ei- may be the court assessed attorney inserting county the name of upon ther or dis- without evidence *3 in the complainant instead of cretion of the defendant.”1 form and was an Appellant have the court as- elected to not of substance. plea sess the upon the evidence. jurat containing As to of conviction affiant, defect in the any namе of an 3 rendered Au- Criminal Court corrected, if defects could be 14, 1967, heard gust that the court recites re court fоr ist error is not before this the evidence submitted. State, Tex.Cr.App., 410 view. Snowden only by the evidence reflected Stаte, Tex.Cr.App., Short v. S.W.2d record is that which consented Tex.Cr. Hill v. S.W.2d oath, “the constitute writing, under would App., Stanzel evidence this case.” 628, 18 112Tex.Cr.R. copy A of an ordinance sufficiency considering speed lim- establishing maximum Houston it in abatemеnt attacked as bad because and zones of such its on certain streets to, Supreme was not sworn apрellant’s con- part made a streets was & in Chevallier H. H. Williams stipulate. sent to 239, 242, Co., 2 Tex. out it “and name was to defendant’s subscribed approved the consent trial court the clerk is in the follow- the attestation of subject to stipulation of the evidence be- to and subscribed words: ‘Sworn the state’s denial contention and me this 5th fore unconstitu- that the ordinance attached is ” Hinton, Deputy The Su- Clerk.’ Samuel general, it in- vague; tional in that is too preme Court said: definite that it is incon- uncertain, 6701d, Secs. 166 and sistent with Art. certifies that “In this case the clerk V.A.C.S. subscribed,’ for plea was to and ‘sworn part made ordinance which was

we can refer his attestation to stipulation before us for review. is at its plea; it inserted else but the conclusion, followed his certifi- ordinance is other Whether such day. the same cate that it was filed on not, provision wise valid or we find no Now, con- it not be establishing prima speed facie thеrein he had the attestation that clude from limit of 50 miles hour on the truth anything else but sworn to Freeway “between ** * pleа. give must Road,” Telephone interpreta- common sense attestation a exceeding The conviction for tion; we are bound doing and in so prima facie limit cannot stand. plea, defendant, offering say the comрlaint being valid, It proved its truth is suffi- our order oath. prosecution indictment be dismissed is with- definite an ciently to sustain drawn, are nоt re- sworn to the state’s motion for perjury, if facts otherwise * * hearing is overruled. true provi- tion in the court than restored the rather 1. The 1967 amendment defend- prior ant. effect sion of V.A.C.C.P. placed the discre- the 1965 Code