Court Opinion

ID: 9665686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:54:55.317131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:17.824714
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
Ex parte Daniels, Tex.Cr.App., 252 S.W.2d 586, which presented a similar contention to that in the case at bar, is distinguishable. In Daniel, supra, the indictment showed on its face that it would not sustain a conviction under Article 63, V.A.P. C.
The indictment in the case at bar is valid on its face. The question of proof of the proper sequence of convictions is not a matter which can be raised collaterally, because it is essentially a question of the sufficiency of the evidence. Ex parte Taylor, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 692; and Ex parte Lyles, Tex.Cr.App., 323 S.W.2d 950. See also Ex parte Huff, Tex.Cr.App., 316 S.W.2d 896.
I concur in the denial of relief.