JAMES TRACY SUMMERVILLE v. STATE
No. 28,988
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 1, 1957
164 Tex. Crim. 591
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
It will be noted that nowhere is it stated therein that the information is presented in and to the county court of any county or in any court having jurisdiction of the offense set forth.
County courts and justice сourts, both, have jurisdiction of the offense charged in the instant information.
Art. 414, C.C.P., provides that in order to be sufficient an information must show—among other things: “That it appear to have been presented in a court having jurisdiction of the offense set forth.” See, also, Davis v. State, 2 Texas App. 184, and Thornberry v. State, 3 Texas App. 36.
Without such allegation, the jurisdiction of the court has not been invoked. It is impossible from this information to know in what court this prosecution was begun and instituted.
It is apparent, here, that thе trial court was not shown to have jurisdiction to try this cause or tо enter the judgment of conviction.
The information being fundamentаlly defective, this conviction should be set aside and the prоsecution ordered dismissed.
John P. Spiller, Houston, for appellant.
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The offense is carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine of $100.00.
The testimony of a regular and an auxiliary policeman of thе city of Deer Park reflects that they observed an automоbile violating certain traffic regulations, pursued it, and found the appellant to be the driver, and “three or four other people” riding in the automobile, in the glove compartment of which they found a pistol.
We need not pass upon the legality of the search of the automobile because we find the evidence insufficient to establish that the pistol was in the possession of the appellant. It was not shown to be his automоbile, and the mere fact that he was driving an automobile in which there were other occupants would not be sufficient to charge him with knowledge that there was a pistol in the glove cоmpartment or sufficient to establish that he had such pistol in his possession. An examination of
So far as this record is concerned, the pistol might just as easily have bеen the property of any other of the occupаnts of the automobile.
Finding the evidence insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remаnded.
WOODLEY, Judge, dissenting.
Three or four passengers riding in the car which appеllant was driving “got out of the car staggering and falling and using abusive languаge and there was something wrong with them.”
There is nothing in the record tо suggest that either of these passengers owned or was in control of the automobile appellant was operating while being pursued by the officers.
Proof of ownership of the car which appellant was driving was not essential to the state‘s case.