¶1The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, five days in jail and a fine of $100.00.
¶2The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.
¶3The judgment is affirmed.
¶4ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
¶5Appellant urges as fundamental error that the court failed to give a proper charge to the jury with respect to the penalty for the offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, charged against him in the information.
¶6The court, in his charge, instructed the jury that if they found appellant guilty they would “fix his punishment at confinement in the county jail for not less than three (3) days nor more than two (2) years, and by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00).”
¶7It is insisted that such instruction was fundamentally erroneous because it did not charge the jury that an additional penalty under the statute was the automatic suspension of appellant’s operator’s license for a period of not less than six (6) months. Art. 6687b, Sec. 24, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.
¶8In support of his contention, reference is made by appellant to the recent amendment of Section 1 of Article 6687b by the 59th Legislature in 1965, which added subsection (r) that reads:
“ ‘The suspension or revocation of a license.’ Shall be considered as a penalty and subject to executive clemency as any other fine or punishment.”
¶9It should first be pointed out that the amendment of Art. 6687b, supra, by the 59th Legislature did not become effective until ninety days after the date of adjournment, which was after the date of appellant’s trial and conviction in the county court.
¶10It has been the holding of this court prior to the effective date of the above amendment that the matter of revocation or suspension of an accused’s operator’s license upon conviction for driving while intoxicated is not a part of the charge, verdict, or judgment and is therefore not a question for the jury’s consideration. Davison *129v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 376, 313 S.W.2d 883; Taylor v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 568, 209 S.W.2d 191; Beach v. State, 199 S.W.2d 1020; Walker v. State, 125 S.W.2d 571, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 368; McIntire v. State, 117 S.W.2d 1093, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 285; Schultz v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 115 S.W.2d 417.
¶11The motion for rehearing is overruled.
¶12Opinion approved by the Court.