# Rowland v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · January 30, 1957 · 166 Tex. Crim. 118

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9671884

## Case

- **Full name:** Omar Blake ROWLAND, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** January 30, 1957
- **Citations:** 166 Tex. Crim. 118; 311 S.W.2d 831; 1957 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2422
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Morrison
- **Judges:** Dice, Woodley, Morrison, Davidson
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9671884

## Opinion text

On Appellant’s Second Motion for Rehearing
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The writer concurred in the majority opinion on appellant’s motion for rehearing. After more mature study and in the light of appellant’s brief, I have concluded that there is a serious question as to the soundness of the reasoning therein contained. I do, however, remain convinced that the original opinion on appellant’s motion to reinstate the appeal properly disposed of this case.
As stated in such opinion, this Court need not pass upon the constitutionality of the present statute because, under the stipulations of fact in the record, it is established that the appellant did drive a motor vehicle at a speed in excess of sixty miles per hour upon a public highway in Reagan County, Texas. If the Act of 1951 as amended in 1955 is constitutional (and upon this question I do not commit myself), then the appellant is guilty under the provisions of that Act. If, in a case in which such holding became necessary, the Act of 1951 as amended in 1955 should be held to be unconstitutional, then the appellant would still be guilty under the 1941 Act.
Judge WOODLEY’S views are those stated in his opinion on rehearing, but he agrees with the writer that if the amendments of 1951 and 1955 are void, the conviction should be upheld as a prosecution under the 1941 Act. We so held in Judge DICE’S opinion on original submission and have not departed from that view.
Appellant’s second motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9671884. Public record. Not legal advice.