*680OPINION
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
BROWN, Commissioner.Appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for rehearing was granted to allow a re-examination of this indictment question in light of our recent decisions in Reynolds v. State, 547 S.W.2d 590 (decided on February 23, 1977) and Victory v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 547 S.W.2d 1 (decided on November 3, 1976). We have determined that those cases are distinguishable from the instant case and have no effect on our original opinion.
Reynolds v. State, supra, is distinguishable in that the indictment merely alleged that the accused exercised control over property “unlawfully.” Under V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 31.03(b) “unlawfully” is given two different interpretations. We determined, therefore, that the Reynolds indictment was defective in that it failed to allege that the accused exercised control over the property “without the owner’s effective consent.”
In the instant case, however, the terms “force” and “threats” have only one meaning under thé rape statute, as discussed in our original opinion. It was, therefore, unnecessary to allege their definitions in the indictment.
Victory v. State, supra, is likewise distinguishable in that it was necessary to allege the specific intent “to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person” as an element of the offense of indecency with a child. We held that the requirements of Article 21.05, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. required the allegation of the specific intent.
Appellant relies on Posey v. State, 545 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). In that ease, the indictment alleged' the acquisition of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, deception, and subterfuge, in that the accused presented a prescription which prescribed the substance for another person. We held that the allegation that he merely presented another’s prescription alleged “only a noncriminal act — not a criminal offense,” the reasoning being that it would not be unusual for persons to present prescriptions for other members of their families. It was, therefore, necessary to allege why the presentation of such a prescription amounted to “misrepresentation, fraud, etc.” under Section 4.09(a)(3) of the Controlled Substances Act. In the instant case the allegation of rape by force or threats is not subject to any interpretation other than that described in the statute.
Appellant’s second ground of error referring to the insufficiency of the evidence to show penetration is raised in a pro se document which is captioned “A Writ of Habeas Corpus,” but which the trial court deemed to be “in the nature of an appellate brief.” This contention was adequately disposed of in our original opinion.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court.