Stautzenberger v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “enhancement allegations are mere surplusage” and abandoning surplusage “does not invoke the requirements of Article 28.10(c)”
• certified copy of defendant’s driving record showing that he was driving after his license had been revoked sufficient to prove DWLI
• “enhancement allegations are mere surplusage”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).