Stephens Stratton Sheldon v. State
Stephens Stratton Sheldon v. State
Opinion
A motion to set aside an indictment or information may be used only for facial challenges on constitutional grounds. See State v. Rosenbaum, 910 S.W.2d 934, 946 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (dissenting op. adopted on reh'g). "An [information] must be facially tested by itself under the law, as a pleading, it can neither be supported nor defeated as such by what evidence is introduced on trial. A fortiori, it can not be supported or defeated by evidence presented at pretrial." Id. at 948 (citations omitted). Whether Markovich's conduct actually violated section 42.05 must be determined at trial. If convicted, he may argue that the statute was unconstitutionally applied to him.
Markovich v. State, 34 S.W.3d 21, 26-27 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000), aff'd, 77 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). After his conviction, the appellant could have raised this issue in the trial court by a motion in arrest of judgment or a motion for new trial. Appellant did not file and present a motion in arrest of judgment or a motion for new trial. Therefore, appellant waived his opportunity to raise the issue in the trial court. Appellant's amended motion for rehearing is overruled.
__________________________________________
Carl E. F. Dally, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Dally * and Aboussie *
Amended Motion for Rehearing Overruled
Filed: March 6, 2003
Publish
* Before Carl E. F. Dally, Judge (retired), Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West 1998).
* Before Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West 1998).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.