Court Opinion

ID: 9770195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:54:09.869546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:15.716287
License: Public Domain

WHITHAM, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result. I do so because counsel for the defense advised the trial court that he had no objection to the parole instruction in the charge. Contrary to the majority’s opinion, I am not persuaded that the 1989 amendment to Article IV, Section 11(a) of the Constitution of the State of Texas solves the various constitutional issues arising under the federal and state constitutions raised by article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure as amended. See Rose v. State, 724 S.W.2d 832, 845-46 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1986) (Whitham, J., dissenting), aff'd, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). I reserve the right to address further constitutional challenges to article 37.07 should they be raised by proper point of error and briefing of argument in another appeal.