GENE B. COMPTON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 5th District Court of Appeals » 1989 » GENE B. COMPTON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 05-88-01151-CR

Case Date: 12/13/1989

Plaintiff: GENE B. COMPTON, Appellant

Defendant: THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Preview:GENE B. COMPTON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRMED Opinion filed December 13, 1989. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas ............................ No. 05-88-01151-CR ............................ GENE B. COMPTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ................................................................. On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F88-79286-SJ ................................................................. OPINION Before Justices Stewart, Thomas and Kinkeade Opinion by Justice Kinkeade Gene B. Compton appeals his conviction of gambling promotion. Following a jury trial, the court assessed punishment at ten years' confinement and a $5,000 fine. The court probated the sentence for a period of ten years. Compton argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment. Further, Compton argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Because Compton's indictment tracked the statutory language of the applicable statute, we overrule his first point of error. Since the police officers observed Compton handling the money used to cover and to match the bets placed by the participants, we overrule his second point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Statement of Facts On March 3, 1988, undercover vice officer Mike Mendez investigated a gambling complaint at a building known as The Rock. Officer Mendez entered the building twice that evening. Both times Officer Mendez observed several people playing dice. During the first visit, Officer Mendez observed Compton hold the bets of the participants until after the dice were thrown, and then extract a percentage of the winnings for the house before distributing the remaining money to the winners. After placing a bet and observing the action for approximately five minutes, Officer Mendez left the premises. Officer Mendez reported what he had observed to two other vice officers. Subsequently, Officer Mendez reentered The Rock and about one minute later his partner, Officer Dale Erves, also entered the building. At that time, both officers observed Compton handling the money used to cover and to match the bets placed by the participants. After about five minutes, a tactical unit entered the building. When the tactical unit entered the building Officer Erves observed Compton grab the money off of the table and stuff the money into his pockets. Officer Mendez identified Compton as the operator of the dice game. The police placed Compton under arrest and issued citations to the participants. Both Officer Mendez and Officer Erves testified that they never observed Compton place a bet or roll the dice, that they only observed him handle the money used to cover and match the bets. All of the defense witnesses testified that Compton did not operate the game. Motion to Quash In his first point of error, Compton argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to quash the
file:///C|/TX/Folder%2002/05-88-01151-cr-6.html[7/20/2013 1:55:35 AM]

indictment. At trial, Compton objected solely on the ground that the gambling statute and the resulting charging instrument based on that statute were too vague and indefinite. On appeal, however, Compton alleges that the indictment failed to give him sufficient notice of the manner and the means in which he participated in a gambling establishment. An indictment must allege facts sufficient to give the defendant notice of the charged offense. However, unless a fact is essential for notice, the indictment need not plead the evidence relied on by the State. Rarely will an indictment drawn on the language of the penal statute be legally insufficient to provide a defendant with notice of the charged offense. Livington v. State, 739 S.W.2d 311, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Compton's general allegation regarding inadequate notice fails to elaborate exactly how the notice is deficient. Compton also fails to show how more specific notice would have better informed him of the charges against him or have affected the preparation of his defense. The indictment tracks the applicable statute under which the State charged Compton. Tex. Penal Code Ann.

Download 05-88-01151-cr-6.pdf