Opinion

Goolsby v. State

  • 166 Tex. Crim. 180
  • 312 S.W.2d 654
  • 1958 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 4555
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Filed
Mar 12, 1958
Status
Published
Author
Davidson
On the bench
Davidson, Morrison
Cited by
23 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.7%

The opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge,

dissenting.

It is, to me, regrettable that the majority of this court announce, by the affirmance of this case, a direct and contrary holding to that of our Supreme Court and Courts of Civil Appeals upon the same question.

The charge against appellant was that he operated his automobile while his license was suspended. It was for that offense and none other that he was convicted. He was not charged with operating a motor vehicle without a license.

The undisputed evidence shows that appellant’s license expired, according to its own terms, six months prior to the time the offense was alleged to have been committed.

So then, the majority of the court hold that one may be convicted of driving a motor vehicle while his license is suspended, notwithstanding the fact that the license expired by its own terms six months prior thereto.

The holding of our Supreme Court and two Courts of Civil Appeals in this state is directly to the contrary, for those courts hold that the license dies with its expiration date and that any suspension of the license ceases to exist with its expiration.

Indeed, it is the holding of those civil courts that the pendency of an appeal does not extend the license beyond the term *189 for which it is issued. Boston v. Garrison, et al, 256 S.W. 2d 67 ; Stogner v. State, (Ct. Civil Appeals) 309 S.W. 2d 470 ; Bryant v. State, 163 Texas Cr. Rep. 544 , 294 S.W. 2d 819 .

Under those authorities and the facts of this case, appellant could not have been guilty of operating a motor vehicle while his license was suspended.

In the interest of harmony between the holdings of this court and the Supreme Court, this court should follow the latter court and the Courts of Civil Appeals, first: because their holding is correct, and second: because they were first to pass upon and adjudicate the question.

In Jernigan v. State, No. 29,705, delivered April 9, 1958, (page 302, this volume), 313 S.W. 2d 309 , we applied that rule followed the prior holding of the Supreme Court upon the same subject.

I dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.