Allen v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Sherley v. State

    No. 05-23-00196-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 27, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    When the State alleges that a defendant acts knowingly or intentionally along with recklessness, it not necessary for the State to allege the reckless acts with specificity. See Crawford v. State, 646 S.W.2d 936, 937 (Tex. Crim. App.1983); Allen v. State, No. 05-16-00594-CR, 2017 WL 2645033, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 20, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). B. Sufficiency of the Evidence

  2. Guerrero-Acosta v. State

    NUMBER 13-17-00560-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 8, 2018)   Cited 3 times

    While the methods for amending an indictment may vary, it is clear that a written amendment, standing alone or incorporated into the motion or order, must be included in the record for the amendment to be valid. See Tata v. State, 446 S.W.3d 456, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. ref'd) (citing Riney, 28 S.W.3d at 565-66; Head, 299 S.W.3d at 437); Puente, 320 S.W.3d at 358 ("Regardless of whether there may be legitimate ways to amend an indictment other than to make changes directly to the original indictment or to place an amended duplicate into the record, we do not believe that manual changes to a written judicial confession should suffice under any circumstances."); see also Allen v. State, No. 05-16-00594-CR, 2017 WL 2645033, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jun. 20, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that an information was not amended where the State's motion did not include a proposed amended information and the State did not later file an amended information). The State never filed a written motion containing the proposed amendment.