Phariss v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Birdwell v. State

    996 S.W.2d 381 (Tex. App. 1999)   Cited 10 times
    Providing that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for new trial without a hearing when the motion was not timely presented

    In civil and criminal cases, an instrument is deemed filed when it is left with the clerk, regardless of whether a file-mark is placed on the instrument. See Williams v. State, 767 S.W.2d 868, 871-872 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1989, pet. ref'd) (citing Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. LaCoke, 585 S.W.2d 678, 680 (Tex. 1979)); Queen v. State, 701 S.W.2d 314, 316 (Tex. App. — Austin 1985, pet. ref'd); Phariss v. State, 144 Tex.Crim. 234, 161 S.W.2d 1066 (1942). Appellant claims the record in this case affirmatively shows that the information was filed after the plea admonishments and the stipulation and confession.

  2. Montano v. State

    No. 08-04-00282-CR (Tex. App. May. 12, 2005)

    An instrument is deemed filed when it is left with the clerk, regardless of whether a file-mark is placed on the instrument. See Williams v. State, 767 S.W.2d 868, 871-72 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, pet. ref'd), citing Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. LaCoke, 585 S.W.2d 678, 680 (Tex. 1979); Queen v. State, 701 S.W.2d 314, 316 (Tex.App.-Austin 1985, pet. ref'd); Phariss v. State, 144 Tex.Crim. 234, 161 S.W.2d 1066, 1067 (1942). A mistake in the date of filing the indictment must be taken advantage of before or at the trial.

  3. Williams v. State

    767 S.W.2d 868 (Tex. App. 1989)   Cited 16 times
    Holding lack of file mark on enhancement information does not void conviction where other court documents show information was filed before conviction was obtained

    We see no reason why the same rule should not apply in criminal cases, and we hold that it does. See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 12.07 (Vernon 1977); Queen v. State 701 S.W.2d 314, 316 (Tex.App. — Austin 1985, pet. ref'd.); see also Phariss v. State, 144 Tex.Crim. 234, 161 S.W.2d 1066 (1942). Appellant argues that because there is no file mark on the information, a question is raised as to whether it was filed before or after the conviction, and the State is required to put on proof to show when it was left with the clerk.

  4. Queen v. State

    701 S.W.2d 314 (Tex. App. 1985)   Cited 11 times
    Stating information properly presented when delivered to the district clerks office

    It has long been the rule that presentment of an information may be accomplished by the prosecuting attorney delivering the information to the clerk's office. Phariss v. State, 144 Tex.Crim. R., 161 S.W.2d 1066 (1942); 22 Tex.Jur.3d Criminal Law § 23.40, at 593 (1982). It has also long been the rule that when there is more than one district court in the county, an indictment need not show on its face in which district court it was presented.