Court Opinion

ID: 9667239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:39:28.123365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:36.238580
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
Appellant insists that our opinion delivered on original submission is contrary to the rule, stated in Gooden v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 145 S.W.2d 179, and subsequently followed by this Court, that prior convictions can be used only once to enhance punishment as an habitual criminal, under Art. 63 of the Penal Code.
In the Gooden case, the prior convictions were twice used to enhance punishment, under Art. 63, supra, and it was held that this could not be done. We adhere to such holding.
In the instant case, the two prior convictions have not been used more than once to enhance appellant’s punishment under Art. 63, supra.
 The fact that the 1958 conviction was used to enhance his punishment as a second offender under Art. 62, V.A.P.C., does not — under this Court’s holdings in Mayo v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 470, 314 S. W.2d 834, and Ex parte Calloway, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 90, 205 S.W.2d 583, cited in our original opinion- — preclude its subsequent use in fixing his status herein as a third offender (habitual criminal), under Art. 63, supra. The opinion in Ex parte Calloway, supra, which appellant attacks in his brief, though prepared by a Commissioner, was unanimously approved by the Court, and, under the provisions of Art. 1811c, V. C.S., has the same weight and legal effect as if originally prepared and handed down by said court. We adhere to these holdings.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.