Court Opinion

ID: 9682857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:18:37.091234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:42.643150
License: Public Domain

*307McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
“It is common knowledge that the Department of Corrections does not admit convicted defendants without certified copies of a judgment and a sentence duly certified to by the district clerk where the conviction was obtained and they then become part of the inmate’s official record at the Department of Corrections.” Blakes v. State, 634 S.W.2d 319 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).
Since the issue presented here is not the admission of the judgments or sentences, but instead concerns the admissibility of “pen packets,” I must dissent. The rule set forth in Blakes, supra, has been followed without question until today. The majority should at least consider Blakes and pay it a proper farewell.
Without elongating this dissent, I merely refer the majority to the following cases which, under circumstances like those present in the instant cause, the rule of Blakes has been followed: Garza v. State, 705 S.W.2d 818 (Tex.App.—San Antonio, 1986); Chesteen v. State, 712 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.], 1986); and Johnson v. State, 720 S.W.2d 877 (Tex.App.—Texarkana, 1986). See also: Grogan v. State, 713 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.App.— Dallas, 1986); Todd v. State, 598 S.W.2d 286 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Thornton v. State, 576 S.W.2d 407 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); and Jones v. State, 449 S.W.2d 277 (Tex.Cr.App.1970).
Such departure from settled precedent by the majority requires me to respectfully dissent.