Court Opinion

ID: 9771284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:38:31.927415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:28.046191
License: Public Domain

BENAVIDES, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment here for reasons expressed in Houth v. State, 845 S.W.2d 853 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (Bena-vides, J., concurring). I am of the opinion that prosecutions for DWI and unlawfully carrying a weapon are not jeopardy barred on account of earlier prosecutions for failure to control speed and failure to wear a safety belt, not because the State will actually forego proof of these latter crimes in the pending cases, but rather because the State need not necessarily prove them in any case to sustain a conviction for DWI or unlawfully carrying a weapon. In short, failure to control speed and failure to wear a safety belt are extraneous offenses with respect to the alleged crimes of DWI and unlawfully carrying a weapon, not lesser included offenses of those crimes. Because I do not accept that Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), ever bars proof of previously adjudicated extraneous offenses as circumstantial evidence of a charged offense, and because I do not accept that Corbin ever bars prosecution of an offense because it is supported by evidence of non-included extraneous offenses, I concur only in the judgment of the Court.
McCORMICK, P.J., and CAMPBELL and WHITE, JJ„ join.