Urban v. State

The dissent of the writer on original sub-, mission was addressed in part to appellant’s contention that “presentment” is a distinguishable act from that of “filing” and that the statute refers to the “filing” of the indictment, whereas the indictment alleged that the bets were taken within a period of one year next preceding the presentment of the indictment.

In connection with this point appellant cited Flores v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 382, 158 S.W.2d 1012.

The state’s motion for rehearing cites this case and others which sustain its contention that the filing of the indictment evidences the…