Court Opinion

ID: 9667240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:39:28.126429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:36.238945
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
I concur with the opinion on motion for rehearing, but would add the following.
Any other holding than the one we have made would render Article 63, supra, inoperative except in those rare cases where a prosecutor had failed to employ the enhancement provisions of the Code. That is, it would be necessary for an accused to have been convicted of two separate felonies at different times, and the first not used to *378enhance the second. Only in such a case could Article 63 be given application upon a third conviction. Any other holding would effectively destroy the purpose of the enhancement provisions of the Code.