From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jun 7, 1972
480 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)

Opinion

Nos. 45377, 45378.

June 7, 1972.

Appeal from the Criminal Court No. 3, Dallas County, James M. Guthrie, J.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Jim. D. Vollers, State's Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.


OPINION


Appellants are charged with the offense of 'operat(ing) and assist(ing) in operating an open saloon' in violation of Article 666 — 3, Vernon's Ann.P.C.

After these prosecutions began, the Legislature amended Article 666 — 3, V.A.P.C., and deleted that portion of it which dealt with the open saloon. Williams and Liggins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 476 S.W.2d 307. See Vernon's General and Special Laws of Texas, Vol. 1, Ch. 65, Sec. 1 at 681. Consequently, there is no longer a basis for prosecution in the cases at bar. Williams and Liggins v. State, supra. Since the convictions are not final, they require reversal. Mendoza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 460 S.W.2d 145. See also Article 14, V.A.P.C.

The judgments are reversed and the causes are dismissed.


Summaries of

Perez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jun 7, 1972
480 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)
Case details for

Perez v. State

Case Details

Full title:Jose PEREZ, Appellant, and Henrietta M. Vargas, Appellants, v. The STATE…

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Jun 7, 1972

Citations

480 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)

Citing Cases

Martinez v. State

In light of the Legislature's repeal, the Court concluded that there was "no longer a basis for prosecution,"…

Ex Parte Mangrum

The defendants were charged with committing the offense of operating an open saloon on or about September 9,…