Court Opinion

ID: 9646768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:10:28.623057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:41.690244
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
Allegations that an accused has previously been convicted two or more times of any grade of offense of theft are jurisdictional rather than “special enhancement” aver-ments under V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 31.03(d)(4)(C) (Acts 1983). Gant v. State, 606 S.W.2d 867, 869, n. 2, 871-872 and n. 9 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), rehearing denied; see Turner v. State, 636 S.W.2d 189 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (Opinion on rehearing, at 196); see also Luedke v. State, 711 S.W.2d 657, 659 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). Thus here, as the Court finds, it is simply a matter of “the State’s failure to sustain its burden of proof.” Opinion, at 482.
Therefore, the Dallas Court of Appeals correctly reversed the judgment of the trial court. However, it erred in ordering a dismissal of the indictment. The only proper relief is to order entry of a judgment of acquittal of the alleged felony offense of theft.
*483Accordingly, insofar as it affirms the judgment of the Dallas Court of Appeals and remands the cause to the trial court, I join the judgment of the Court. However, rather than instruct the trial court to transfer the indictment to- a court with misdemeanor jurisdiction, I would order an acquittal of the felony offense alleged in the indictment.
CAMPBELL, J., joins this opinion.