1987, no pet.). In construing this article, the court of criminal appeals has consistently held to effectively substitute a duplicate indictment where the original has been lost before trial, the record must show that [T]he state’s attorney had filed a formal motion setting out (1) the loss of the indictment; (2) an exact or substantial copy thereof; (3) a statement by such attorney that same is, in substance at least, the same as the lost indictment; [and] (4) a showing that a judgment of the substitution was entered and carried into the minutes of the court. Maples v. State, 126 Tex.Crim. 153, 70 S.W.2d 198, 200 (1934) (op. on denial of second motion for reh’g) (citing Burrage, 44 S.W. at 169); see also White v. State, 72 Tex.Crim. 16, 160 S.W. 703 (Tex.Crim.App.1913) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the State failed to meet the
holding record must affirmatively show that the substitution was actually made by the prosecutors written motion and the trial courts order holding in a paternity action that the selection and change of the childs surname from the name chosen by the mother must be based on the trial courts determination that renaming is in the childs best interests and the record must affirmatively show such a name change is required for the welfare of the minor child holding an interlocutory appeal is allowed from the trial courts written order denying a motion to dismiss under the tcpa holding that when a courts statements from the bench conflict with its written order the order controls holding that the trial courts written order was not the entry of a sentence sufficient to support a determination that a judgment of conviction was entered