Court Opinion

ID: 9775462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:59:38.564388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:26.422198
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Judge,
dissenting.
The result reached by the majority today again points out the absurdity of the reasoning being used by this Court in its never-ending attempt to justify the constitutionally infirm Speedy Trial Act.
If unpreparedness on one offense is “valid” as to another, then why is readiness as to one offense not good as to another where they both grow out of the same transaction? Compare Kalish v. State, 662 S.W.2d 595, 601 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).
Because the majority once again is inconsistent in their reasoning, I must dissent.