Court Opinion

ID: 9647018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:21:17.573088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:44.881582
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Judge,
concurring.
The plurality opinion implies there is a conflict between the provisions of Art. 17.-15, V.A.C.C.P., and Art. 56.01, V.A.C.C.P., regarding whose safety the trial judge may consider when setting a bail amount, and that Art. 17.15, which specifically and solely addresses bail setting, must prevail over *326Art. 56.01. See at p. 325. I do not necessarily believe that these two statutes cannot be harmonized and both be made effective.
An excellent case can be made that the statutes are pari materia and therefore must be construed with reference to each other. See V.T.C.A. GovtCode § 311.-026(a) (if general provision conflicts with special or local provision, provisions shall be construed to give effect to both if possible). Also see discussion in Cheney v. State, 755 S.W.2d 123, 126-27 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (well-settled by this Court that where two statutes are found to be pari materia, effort is made to harmonize and give effect to both).
However, “[w]e need not resolve this question today,” as the plurality notes at p. 325. Thus, with these comments, I concur in the result.
CAMPBELL and BAIRD, JJ., join.