Court Opinion

ID: 9649076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:41:39.59389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:07.522296
License: Public Domain

MEYERS, J.,
delivered this concurring opinion, joined by MANFIELD and JOHNSON, J.J.
I write to further explain why application of a Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), analysis is not necessary here.1 Once we have determined the legislature intended to provide for several separate and distinct statutory offenses within article 21.021 and we are not confronted with an allegation that these offenses are supported by the “same act,” we need conduct no further analysis, despite the fact that these acts all occurred within the “same transaction.”
The Supreme Court in Blockburger said its analysis should be applied “where the same act or transaction constitutes a viola*835tion of two distinct statutory provisions.2 At first blush this case appears to fall within its purview — as one involving the “same ... transaction constituting] a violation of two distinct statutory provisions.” But our consideration here actually involves one transaction comprised of a violation of two distinct statutory provisions. This differs significantly from the “same transaction” scenario subject to Blockbur-ger. Blockburger envisions the type of “transaction” the whole of which amounts to more than one offense. In other words, the transaction taken as a whole (the entire series of acts or course of action) amounts to multiple statutory violations. By contrast, the transaction in this case is comprised of separate and distinct acts, each of which violate distinct statutory provisions.3
With these comments, I concur.

. The majority explains such analysis is not necessary "because the offenses at issue involve separate acts” and because "the precondition for employing the test (that the two offenses involve the same conduct) is absent.” Majority opinion at 833.

. The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provisions requires proof of a fact which the other does not.
Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. 180.

. Of course, if it were alleged that any of the acts within the transaction were actually the same (were not separate and distinct) and were being utilized to support alleged violations of two distinct statutory provisions, a Blockburger analysis would be in order as to those acts.