Henderson, Arthur Eugean

>*5\i i\i\r4 ( ^ :k-

V V ft ^mmmsmi :mK5m^wr^ i&jemfyM&n

+hu*a afx.TAii ift^ ,<?&*s^ ajJTJUte^ um to "(toe or n-s: i^avc^a? «di&5 MOruji^cvs

LtE>J M

£fo&'r* .tZ. - - • • •

\! -c ~\\i^r

bC!

sixths '•• <m\wi\tf&m$&®&$: <m^^i^fp* ^ C^/#t*Vo#sria? -C iter •

: •' 7 lA^"^ '? •/ r ' • 7"Y"- •''.'. 7 7".."."- r..',:V-."--''-"-• r-fc '/''*'• ''' J- '"•'" v:"":. CtfivviC 15 K££3KnP$>l>$AJ 'HIS VR30m •• ••-•• •• U,gl7

r). SiKfaM iCo/iq (TnC,CK)W,KftV; igggj, Ht'LP PTJ3 q^^^i pit nu( j,ry,^nr? rv ri^irrs ^ °^

l££Mi^ Er^^^j^^.^-^v Tk£ THSMi ££MC H^ 4sf <^)STWJJ0gW DUTY id nuroemiw, tuts cdmc; mebhcc is^u t wwwr,

^tl TO VK^Lf TO -TVflS TS5U€ A^Cft-iS'WW*-

TWt

":\ wm

...... # ' ' '.A3.

,^f

te^eaco^X TKR, % 4 VQfch fOUJ rw-Y tujagLildiJLUfeS.Mm - *>:.P~

THIS W*VUI*tr Ifti0t7-114G;

• • <• '•no iftsfoirss u^-s^jas /stt/Sivrftv^ •-fir"

^J^ffe-'

m# -k^.ww^-;h£.™gMk ^ic evfeaiK. y^^SfiBS^S^TJm^

te /^f

•WW-, 5tt/ 50 fe Wll,StMtf5. 3.1SJ2l'{\y

fH'30 •5tl/ Wlc. CiOHMCK, K3LHckyOiv $> K3CWX- .LStT r; orx uni? mwiw, a i, rift,.w#t& sewts

o w m^ ag [j-Tvc TKM

xF''^:'wrff$^$yf^'%^^ ^ Ms.

133 ;w7*i^W§C^ 7. T»iiiKjm_i\

c/c\ -•'•'• • ; State ^Zprriria/4b4':SW 3d 734. Tex:*'Court

T"; , *4.04 S.W.3d 734 (2013)

7"7 The STATE of Texas, Appellant . • •:• v.

"; Boris ZORRILLA, Appellee.

No. 04-12-00360-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

.. ' v '-"- ,;.'.: May 22; 2013. .... ; (• ' •- • . .'. •»-• ••«-„... - : • : •«•-::, • . V T i • • - "- , ... '!,"4" •-? '.i '. *• .•.%• » '•' -M ••••.•->«> ;4; ..\ .;^.i.."l!.-'t|'«. ,- i .:=*.; '$•••••••' .'."' 735" " '735 Paul\J: Goeke?'Attorhey. At Law; Sari" Antonio, TX, fonAppellant/ • ".; • Y]fiu^,~.- ,

Lauren A. Scott, Assistant District Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Appellee.

Sitting: KAREN ANGELINI, Justice, SANDEE BRYAN MARION,'Justice, PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ, Justice.

OPINION

Opinion by: SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice. ....

The State of Texas appeals the trial court's granting, ofappellee's.motion to qffash thecomplaint. Because we conclude the complaint was sufficient, we reverse and remand- *'"• "' •--• •«• . . " •'»?; •:,• • .,' ,!'.'5'*-

^ANALYSIS ..•j.i;-. • v-A*. ,*, "« ij - A-» ' >' •"?, '. ^Th'e,comp1aint,states as follows? .""•'. Before me the undersigned authority on this dayper'sonaHyJappeared' affiant, who after being duly sworniby me on oath deposes and says that affiant has good reason,to believ'e'and does believe that inthe County of Bexar and the State of Texas, and before the making and filing of this complaint, on this 1"[sic] day of October, 2009, Zorrilla, Boris committed , the offense of Criminal Trespass — Habitation against the peace and dignity of the State.

An information based on the complaint was also filed. The information alleged that "in said County of Bexar and State of Texas,- and before the making and filing of this information, on or about the 1st Day of October, 2009, BORIS ZORRILLA, hereinafter called . defendant, did intentionally and knowingly REMAIN in a-HABITATlON'of another,'nimeA<f;.-Lqn.Qrejanfw'^0!Ae^^e consent of Lori '" Greenland"the said defendant hav[nVRECEIVEp NOTICEjTO^DEPART BUT FAILED TOspO SO ", Appellee filed a motion^o quash boththe information and the complaint alleging, among otherthings, that both documents failed to comply with the statutoryand judicially-created requirementsfor a valid information'and complaint because the documents did'notstate thetime and place ofthe commission oftheoffense as definitely as couid bedone by the affiant. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion to quash. • • " •'" .•/. ' .','-r~ '! ,/',

Avalid complaint is a prerequisite to avalid;information/fEX-CODE GRIM:'PROCl=:ANN. art,%22(West 2Q06); Villarreal v.'State. 729 . ,vS.W.2d 348,' 349 (Tex.App.-EI Paso 1987. no pet.). The purpose ofa complaint is to apprise the accused"of the facts" surrounding the offense with which heis charge'dTso that hemay prepare a,.defense. Valleio'v. "State. 408 S.W.2d lit 3. 114 rrex*:Cri"m.Apb..1966):.K/no7ev' v. State.*'87~9 S.W:2d 261.1262 (Tex. Aoo.-Houston f14th Dist.1.1994. no pet.). • „• «•. .„,„ ,; - .-.„•- v. tv ,« , ...- 736 *736 The particularity in pleading that isjequired for an indictment or an information'-' is not required for a complaint, and a complaint will"not: be*dismissed duetto afmere infqrmalitv:.,\/a//e/o, 408S.W.2d at114"A complaint'-'shaii be sufficient;:-without regard^to form;'.' if it "has these four "substantia!jnaquisites^ ,,.,_ ; . .- - ^ ',-•<., ..« '•r-,las ^'j ' 'Vs,"; ' ;> 1. It must state the name ofthe accused, if known, and if not known, must give some reasonably definite'description'of him. v" ' • • .• ; . '• . .j- '• •'"';• j's-i; ••. . 2. It must show that the accused has committed some offense against the laws of the State, either directly.br that the affiant has good reason to believe, and does believe, that the accused has committed such offense.

1 of 2 oSO^t^C^ Q/?Q/?niA4-

ate v. Zorrilla. 404 SW 3d 734 -Tex: Court ofAppeals, 4th Dist. 20... http://scholar.g0ogle.com/sch0lar_case?case=35812403289486893 . 3. It must state the time and place of the commission/h?Sffense, aTdefinttelyas canTSeWe by the affiant. 4. It must besigned by the affiant by writing his name or affixing his mark. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 15.05 (West 2005).

tHh!r!fflhe °nly TrV< reqUiSite ^tria' 3nd °n 3PPeal IS *" third' WhiCh reqUireS the ^'^ to state »• "P'-e of the commission of "he the tcomprintTstates ? that"theC3naffiant ^ d°ne ^thethataffiant" believed ^ °nwas the offense 3PPeal' ^ State committed 3SSertS on the the ofCOm"aint 1st day October,s« 2009 in 'Bexar his -quisite County"be'se Appellee counters that this argument would re-write article 15.05 to require the venue, as opposed to the place, of the offense

of indictmert) The narrow issue before us is whether merely stating "County of Bexar" is sufficient or did the State need t leTa more specific location of the habitation appeHee is accused oftrespassing upon. Because the resolution of this quest" of ,awdoes not turn on an evaluation of the credibility and demeanor of awitness, the tria, court in this case was not in abetter position to Zl!the 737 determination; therefore, we conduct ade novo review of the issue. Id. With one exception^ we have found no case that specifically oZzi;:,ssue- ?tt in other ~-aithou9h the issue *737 was notwhether-p,ace"w-•**« ascribed z:«::i concluded the complaints that alleged only the county of the alleged offense to be sufficient. For example, in Reyes , state, the complaint charging defendant with aggravated robbery was sufficient because it alleged "theaffiant as good reason to eHeve that in Harris County, Texas, Carlton Reyes Franklin (aka Franklin Carlton Reyes) did on or about Novemb r 30, 1979, then and there commit the two counts of the offense of aggravated robbery ...."630 S.W.2d 822 822-23 (Tex Ado Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no pet.). Likewise, in VaUejo, the complaint stated, in pertinent part, as follows:

RUNP FILING T^rRnZ*M OF THIS COMPLAINT, ^WITHIN D°N THE °R AB0UT ™E 31 DMLIMITS INCORPORATED °F MAR OF -THE1965' CITYAND BEF0REINTHETRAVIS OF AUSTIN MAK.NG AND COUNTY, TEXAS, Ddid drive and operate amotor vehicle upon apublic street therein situated at aspeed which was greater than was then reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing, to-wit, at aspeed of 45 miles per hour, at which time and place the lawful maximum prima facie reasonab.e and prudent speed indicated by an official sign then and there posted was 30 miles per hour....

a^aW'2dtaht1U' ~ ~ TheMC°Urt "*""*°f Crimina' APPea' With What he Swashe'b^ d thS C°mPlaint char^ -SUffiCient beC3USeprepare - to properly the apPellant "fromId,readi"S adefense." see alsotheCisco, complaintLT could fell• - I ^^App-nnrr,Msnhristi1998 pet r.fd) (speeding "upon apublic highway outside an urban district upon a federal h,ghwav 'in the County ofJackson"); K^k-879 S.WPd at ?63 (displaying an expired license plate "in the County of Hal'). lZT^Sl\TS' ^ are COnStrained offense, sat.sfied the requis.tes t0 C°nClUde of article 15;05 sufficientlythetoCOmP' aintappellee apprise "thiS CaSS' oftheWhich °n|ywith-which offense al,e9ed Bexar Co-tV he was - theso place charged that heofthe could prepare adefense. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion to quash -•

ONCLUSION

We sustain the State's issue on appeal and reverse the trial court's order. We remand the cause for further proceedings. mSimilarly the purpose of an information is to notify.the accused ofthe charged offense and its elements so that he may.property prepare his defense

land'! mat theTIT [and].[t]hat offense7be setT**T6 a " l°the forth in plain and intelligible fiiin9 °fTEX.CODE words...." the informati°n' CRIM.and that the PROC. ANN.0ffense d°es(5)-(7). art. 21.21 not aPPear to be barred by limitation- " fuZtT^ suffioent. 0]n (ortht TJ" about) the 27SimHarfa<=t (sic) day Sof"September, mamal "WWCh tHe and A.D. 1985, f°"0Win9 beforeC°mp{aint the makingCha^inS the ofdefendant and filing ** ™<™< this complaint t^pass in Justice wasPrecinct of Peal held not No 3 of eff Davis County State ofTexas, [the accused] did then and there uniawfuHy and wi„fu„y commLmina, Jpass SecToSo^a^X peace and diamtv ofthe State "7?qs\A/9H <.» ^o n,«ia 1„.:-.....=.,_.-_.,._.. -- ^ ° a9amst tne the placebo JHSticeWftlre;pe

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

COQSfSSQ^C^)