¶1The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, thirty days in jail and a fine of $1,000.
¶2The testimony of the state reveals that the appellant was driving a pickup upon a public highway at the time and place alleged, and after failing to observe a stop sign, the appellant upon a signal from the officers stopped his pickup.
¶3The officers testified that after he stopped they observed his actions and conduct, and that he had the odor of intoxicants on his breath, and each expressed the opinion that he was intoxicated. They further testified that appellant gave his oral consent to the removal of a blood specimen for a test of its alcoholic content.
¶4Chemist Merritt testified that an analysis of the blood specimen revealed that it had an alcoholic content of 0.29 per cent, which is indicative of intoxication.
¶5The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence.
¶6Appellant insists that the trial court erred 'in admitting evidence of a blood test, and in refusing his motion to strike such evidence, on the ground that his written consent was for a urine test instead of a blood test.
¶7The testimony reveals that the appellant gave his oral consent to the taking of a blood specimen, that he was taken to a hospital where a physician removed a specimen of his blood and placed it in a container. The written consent of a person under arrest is not necessary for the taking of a specimen of his blood. Mora v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 321, 263 S.W.2d 787; Owen v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 347 S.W.2d 264.
¶8The evidence further shows that the appellant gave his written consent to the taking of a urine test. The fact that he gave his written consent to take a urine test is not inconsistent with and does not preclude the state from also having or obtaining his oral consent for a blood test.
¶9Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, and no error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
¶10Opinion approved by the Court.