TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-96-00448-CR
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. 42,941, HONORABLE HOWARD S. WARNER, II, JUDGE PRESIDING
The only issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion to quash the information. In his motion to quash, appellant alleged the information should be quashed because it failed to allege a culpable mental state. Appellant urged at trial, and contends on appeal, that the Penal Code requires the State in its information in driving while intoxicated prosecutions to allege a culpable mental state. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.02(b) (West 1994). Although appellant makes cogent arguments in his brief, precedent is squarely against him. Contentions and arguments that are the same as those made by appellant have been considered and rejected in five recent opinions by four courts of appeals, including this Court. See Sanders v. State, 936 S.W.2d 436 (Tex. App.--Austin 1996, pet. ref'd); Aguirre v. State, 928 S.W.2d 759 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no pet.); State v. Sanchez, 925 S.W.2d 371 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd); Chunn v. State, 923 S.W.2d 728 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd); Reed v. State, 916 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1996, pet. ref'd).
Because these opinions consider and answer contentions that are the same as made by appellant, no further discussion is necessary. Appellant's point of error is overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
Carl E. F. Dally, Justice
Before Justices Powers, Kidd and Dally*
Affirmed
Filed: June 26, 1997
Do Not Publish
* Before Carl E. F. Dally, Judge (retired), Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West 1988).