Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ex Parte Tipton

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided June 10, 1981No. 67704Published

1DissentMcCORMICK, Judge

The majority grants relief in this cause because the indictment alleged possession of “Hashish” rather than “tetrahydrocannabi-nol.” Such a collateral attack should not be allowed in light of the language of Section 2.02 of the Controlled Substances Act (V.A. C.S. Article 4476-15). That section provides:

“The controlled substances listed or to be listed in the schedules in Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V and Penalty Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 are included by whatever official, common, usual, chemical, or trade name they may be designated.” (Emphasis supplied)

Tetrahydrocannabinol is the chemical…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Anderson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API