Court Opinion

ID: 2909635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 04:17:34.407098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:43.783593
License: Public Domain

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF
APPEALS

 

No. 10-02-00308-CR
No.
10-02-00309-CR
No.
10-02-00310-CR
 
Raymond Edward Olivas,
                                                                      Appellant
 v.
 
The State of Texas,
                                                                      Appellee
 
 
 

From the 272nd District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 29252F-272, 29311F-272 and 29308F-272
 

DISSENTING Opinion

 
      A
majority of this Court has previously found unassigned error.  E.g.,
Hailey v. State, 50 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), rev’d, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); In re B.L.D., 56 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001) (per curiam), rev’d, 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003). 
The Court has been reversed.  E.g., Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118,
121-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), cert.
denied, 538 U.S. 1060 (2003); In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 350-51 (Tex. 2003), cert.
denied sub nom. Dossey v. Tex. Dep’t
of Protective & Reg. Servs., 124
S. Ct. 1674 (2004). 
There is virtually no such thing as unassigned error.  Id.  There is
none to be addressed here.
      A
majority of this Court has previously found fundamental error.  E.g.,
Rushing v. State, 50 S.W.3d 715, 722-25 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), aff’d on other grounds, 85 S.W.3d 283,
284-87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); B.L.D., 56
S.W.3d at 214-15; In re J.F.C., 57
S.W.3d 66, 74 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), rev’d,
96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002). 
The Court has been reversed and been held to have erred.  E.g.,
Rushing v. State, 85 S.W.3d 283, 284-87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 350-51; In
re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 272-74, 277-79 (Tex. 2002). 
There is almost no such thing as fundamental error.  Mendez
v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 340-42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 887-89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573
(Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (reasonable doubt instruction not absolute systemic
requirement).  There is no fundamental
error in the charge without egregious harm.  
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d
157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh’g). 
There is no fundamental error here. 

      The
majority again finds unassigned and fundamental error here.  I dissent.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Dissenting opinion delivered and filed November
 10, 2004
Publish