Rushing v. StateRushing v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Belcher
Lead Opinion
Aрpellant was convicted and. assessed a fine of $100 under a complaint and information charging that appellant “did then and there unlawfully drivе and operate a motor vehicle uрon a public highway, there situate, when the Texаs Operator’s license of the said Georgе Gordon Rushing was suspended.”
No ■ statement of facts accompanies the record.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the complaint and information to charge an offense in that it doеs not allege that appellant had an operator’s license, or how, when and by whom any operator’s license he may have hаd was suspended, and does not inform him of the nature and character of the proof he would be required to meet.
The allegations of sаid complaint and information are sufficient to apprise the accused of. the naturе of the offense with which he is charged, therefоre appellant’s motion to quash was prоperly overruled. Hines v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 248 S.W.2d 156.
Appellant’s remaining contentions cannot be appraised in the absence of a statement of facts. Reece v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 425, 209 S.W.2d 177; Gill v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 604, 210 S.W.2d 170; McDaniel v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 126, 239 S.W.2d 630; Elliot v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 502, 243 S.W. 2d 839; Mason v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 244 S.W.2d 216; Barnes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 261 S.W.2d 597; Bishop v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 269 S.W.2d 372.
Finding no revеrsible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court.
Lead Opinion
On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing
WOODLEY, Judge. .A statement of facts timely filed in the trial court has been furnished ’ and will be considered.
Appellant contends that there is no evidence to the effect that a Texas Operator’s Licensе was ever issued to him and no showing that any such Operator’s License had been suspended.
The еvidence, viewed from the standpoint most favоrable to the State, showed that appellant-was convicted in February 1952 of the offensе of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highwаy while intoxicated, and that he was arrested while driving, a motor vehicle on a public road in Junе thereafter.
There is no proof that aрpellant was a licensee prior to his conviction in February for driving while intoxicated. If a license had been issued to him, there is nothing in the record to show that it was a “Texas Operator’s Liсense” which was suspended by reason of such сonviction. The proof therefore fails to sustain the allegation of the complaint and information that appellant drove a mоtor vehicle “when the Texas Operator’s Liсense of the said George Gordon Rushing was suspended.”
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted, the affirmance is set aside and the judgment is now reversed and the cause remanded.