170 Tex. Crim. 593 - Williams v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2004

9 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 *582 A. L. Lowery, Marion G. Holt, Nacogdoches, for appellant.

¶2Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The offense is driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.

¶5The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.

¶6

On Appellant's Motion for Rehearing

¶7WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

¶8The facts adduced at the hearing on appellant's motion for new trial are now before us. We are asked to consider such facts in connection with appellant's brief.

¶9The contention is that the county court was without jurisdiction to try appellant because he had been previously convicted of the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated, in Smith County, and under Art. 802b Vernon's Ann.P.C. it was mandatory that a subsequent offense of driving while intoxicated be prosecuted by indictment in a court having jurisdiction of felony offenses.

¶10 Winfrey v. Chandler, Tex., 318 S.W.2d 59, cited and relied upon, does not support appellant's contention. The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to decide the question.

¶11This Court held in Coker v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 141, 253 S.W.2d 668, that the information which contained no allegation of a prior conviction charged the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated, over which the county court had jurisdiction.

¶12We held in McKenzie v. State, 159 Tex. Cr.R. 345, 263 S.W.2d 562, that the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated is an offense included within the allegations of an indictment for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated, subsequent offense.

¶13It is well settled that an accused cannot complain that he was charged, tried or convicted for a lesser included offense rather than the higher or greater offense. See Grimes v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 614, 160 S.W. 689; Heard v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 88, 267 S.W.2d 150; Saenz v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 145, 275 S.W.2d 497; Carr v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 337, 255 S.W.2d 870.

¶14Appellant's contention is without merit for the further reason that his conviction in Smith County did not occur until after the Angelina County offense here charged had been committed.

¶15Appellant's motion for rehearing is overruled.