
    WILKERSON v. STATE.
    No. 19376.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 9, 1938.
    J. A. Johnson, of Stephenville, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for driving an automobile on a public highway in this State while intoxicated; punishment, a finé of $250, and sixty-three days’ confinement in the county jail.

The jury was instructed in the charge of the court to add to their verdict the length of time appellant should be prohibited from driving any motor vehicle upon the highways of this State, not to exceed two years. The verdict reads in part as follows: “And should be prohibited from driving any motor vehicle upon the highways of this State for eight months.”

Prior to th$ repeal of article 802a, V.erf non’s Ann.P.C., the jury would have been warranted in prohibiting the appellant from driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this State for a period not to exceed two years. However, when the offense was committed by appellant, and at the time of his trial, said article 802a was not in effect. The repealing act, section 16 of chapter 466, Acts of the 44th Leg. 1935, Second Called Session, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 6687a, § 16, provided that a conviction for a violation of the provisions of article 802, P.C., as amended by Acts 1935, First Called Session, chapter 424, Vernon’s Ann.P.C, art. 802, denouncing the driving of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, should have the effect of automatically suspending the license of one so convicted for a period of six months for the first offense. In Harris v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 109 S.W.2d 201, it was held that the act of the Legislature mentioned repealed article 802a, supra.

As far as the record discloses the matter, this was appellant’s first conviction under article 802, supra. Therefore it would follow that his license could only be suspended or revoked for a period of six months. It will be observed the statute provides that the effect of such conviction is to automatically suspend the license; therefore no charge on the sub j ect should have been submitted to the jury.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.  