of the use of a deadly weapon. Additionally, the State does not dispute there is no other pleading sufficient to put the defendant on notice it would be seeking a deadly weapon finding. However, the State avers that the indictment, while not expressly asserting the use of a deadly weapon, was sufficient to put the defendant on notice. The indictment in this case stated in relevant part that: Aubrey Sande Houston [14th Dist.] 1989), aff'd, 804 S.W.2d 107 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (indicating that indictment alleging unknown object used to strangle victim provided sufficient notice to defendant the State would seek deadly weapon fin serious bodily injury caused by “placing victim in hot liquid” was proper notice); Mitchell v. State, 821 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Tex.App.—Austin 1991, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Here, the indictment alleged appellant
recognizing that motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon in involuntary manslaughter case for purposes of providing notice in indictment holding that indictment alleging defendant committed attempted murder by stabbing with a knife was proper notice of intent to seek deadly weapon finding holding an allegation that defendant caused death by cutting victims throat with sharp object was sufficient to give notice of states intent to seek deadly weapon finding holding a motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon by the manner of its use holding that indictment alleging serious bodily injury caused by motor vehicle colliding with a fixed object provides sufficient notice of states intent to seek deadly weapon finding