Court Opinion

ID: 9660148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:06:26.631658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:16.018440
License: Public Domain

BAIRD, Judge,
concurring.
Unlike the majority, I believe the instant issue was preserved for appellate review. Therefore, I would address the merits and find the trial judge did not violate Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 35.11 by removing the previously selected jurors after the shuffle of appellant’s venire.
I.
In light of our recent opinion in Linnell v. State, 935 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.Cr.App.1996), it is clear the trial judge was required to exclude from appellant’s , venire those who had been *6selected for interim jury service.1 That, these jurors/veniremembers were removed from the venire after the shuffle is not error; there was no need for a second shuffle.
II.
Additionally, I believe the Legislature should consider repealing art. 35.11. It appears the statute’s day has passed in light of the enactment of Tex.Gov’t.Code Ann. § 62.001 (Vernon’s 1995), which requires the venire to be drawn from the names of all persons currently registered to vote in the county, all citizens of the county currently holding a valid Texas driver’s license and all citizens currently holding a valid personal identification card or certificate.
With these comments, I join only the judgment of the Court.

. Specifically, Linnell holds:
... if the trial judge intends to select more than one jury from a single venire, the venire-members selected to serve as jurors must be excluded from the venire from which the other jurors will be selected.
Id., 935 S.W.2d at 430.