Court Opinion

ID: 9766984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:05:33.194114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:27.551284
License: Public Domain

FENDER, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Numerous attacks on the constitutionality of the Speedy Trial Act have been attempted before this Court, but in instances where we did not apply same to order dismissal we have avoided considering same. Also, where we have reversed on other grounds we have not been so confronted with the question. Now we are confronted with a direct application of the Act with no other grounds presented or considered. I do not disagree with the *297position of the majority that appellant is entitled to the relief sought if the Speedy Trial Act is constitutionally sound.
In my view the caption of the Act is deficient to at least the same degree as was the caption to the 1981 amendment to the Texas Controlled Substances Act which was condemned in Ex parte Crisp, 661 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). See also White v. State, 440 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1969). I register my dissent from the majority holding and would vote to affirm the conviction.