Court Opinion

ID: 9771356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:39:54.169907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:40:56.852920
License: Public Domain

KINKEADE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In Garrett II the court of criminal appeals states that all language in Garrett I with regard to double jeopardy is “advisory” and that the court has no authority to issue advisory opinions. The court of criminal appeals expressed no opinion on whether appellant could be tried for a lesser included offense. Double jeopardy as interpreted in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 (1932), does not forbid a second trial of a defendant for a lesser included offense, provided there is no finding by the trier of fact of insufficient evidence to support a conviction for the lesser .included offense. Therefore, I would affirm the trial court’s denial of the application for writ of habeas corpus.