Felix Menchaca v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-03-00653-CR
Felix U. MANCHACA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 854637
Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 26, 2004

AFFIRMED

Felix U. Manchaca appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to quash. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Background

The State charges that on June 20, 2003, Manchaca committed the offense of driving while intoxicated. Manchaca pled no contest to the charge. The trial judge sentenced him to eleven months' confinement and probated his sentence over a two-year period.

At the time of the alleged offense, Manchaca had a prior driving-while-intoxicated conviction in Medina County. The State alleged this prior conviction in the information and used it to enhance Medina's punishment. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 49.09(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004) (enhancing punishment for driving while intoxicated upon proof of prior driving-while-intoxicated conviction).

At the hearing in which he pled no contest, Manchaca argued that the trial court should quash the information because, in his prior driving-while-intoxicated case, he was not represented by an attorney. We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to quash under an abuse of discretion standard. Thomas v. State, 621 S.W.2d 158, 163 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981).

Motion to Quash

Article 27.10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states in unambiguous terms that "[a]ll motions to set aside an indictment or information and all special pleas and exceptions shall be in writing." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 27.10 (Vernon 1989); State v. Abrego, 974 S.W.2d 177, 179 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, no pet.). Here, Manchaca failed to submit his motion in writing. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to quash.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Karen Angelini, Justice

Do not publish