Hood v. State

OPINION

TOM G. DAVIS, Judge.

Appeal is taken from a conviction for theft of property with a value of more than $20.00 but less than $200.00. Following her plea of nolo contendere, the court assessed punishment at one day and a $50.00 fine.

In her sole ground of error, appellant contends that the property description as alleged within the information is so vague as to render the information fundamentally defective. This contention was presented to the trial court by way of a motion to quash.

*568The information alleges that on December 22, 1978, appellant:

“... did unlawfully and intentionally…