# State v. Boado

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · December 3, 1999 · 8 S.W.3d 15

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9689466

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Janice M. BOADO, Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** December 3, 1999
- **Citations:** 8 S.W.3d 15; 1999 WL 681987
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Frank C. Price
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9689466

## Opinion text

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellee filed a motion for rehearing after we issued our opinion reversing the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to quash the indictment. We find the motion for rehearing to be without merit and it is overruled.
However, the motion for rehearing points out that we did not consider one of the arguments made in appellee’s brief, namely, that the indictment did not allege that appellee was an employee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice or a public servant in any capacity. Appellee is correct that we overlooked the argument which consisted of three sentences without citation to authority. Appellee’s motion for rehearing asserts that the argument “justified the trial court’s decision to quash the indictment.”
Appellee presented the trial court with a motion to quash the indictment that raised only the contention that the indictment did not allege that appellee committed a “violation of duty imposed by law.” This was the only theory for quashing the indictment argued at the hearing, and the trial judge granted the motion on that basis. Appellee may not raise for the first time on appeal the issue of whether the indictment was defective for another reason. See Garay v. State, 954 S.W.2d 59, 63-64 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1997, pet. ref'd); Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(a). We find the argument was not preserved for review.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9689466. Public record. Not legal advice.