Court Opinion

ID: 9749273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:31:36.53796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:45.846908
License: Public Domain

KEASLER, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion in which KELLER, P.J., and HERVEY, J., joined.
The majority incorrectly distinguishes the facts of this case from those in our recent decision in Guerrero v. State.1 But the facts of Guerrero are identical. In Guerrero, a plurality of us held that Guerrero’s convictions for manufacturing and possessing with intent to deliver the same cache of methamphetamine did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.2 Though Guerrero’s manufacture and possession with intent to deliver were close in time, they “were discrete acts with different impulses” — “one impulse to manufacture and another impulse to possess for the purpose of delivering what has been manufactured.”3 The same can and should be said here. I would therefore hold that there is no jeopardy violation and reverse the court of appeals’s judgment.

. 305 S.W.3d 546 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (plurality op.).

. Id. at 553-54, 557, 560-61.

.Id. at 554.