Court Opinion

ID: 9778317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:00:26.18817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:18:21.075659
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
MORRISON, Judge.
I concur in the affirmance of this conviction, but not upon the reasoning set forth in the majority opinion. I find it unnecessary at this time to pass upon the question of the admissibility of extraneous convictions not plead for enhancement, which may have been too remote under the rule announced in Blessett v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 517, 329 S.W.2d 434, upon which the appellant relies.
State’s Exhibit '# 2 contained the judgment and sentence in three cases, including the one alleged for enhancement, and the record reflects that the prosecutor read only “portions” of the exhibit to the jury. There is no showing that they ever saw or heard about the “remote” convictions which had not been plead.
For the reason stated, I join in the af-firmance of this conviction.