Court Opinion

ID: 9779529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 22:05:24.066575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:27.401612
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice.
I concur in the result, but do not adopt the majority’s rationale in overruling points of error seven and eight.
Appellant urges the state did not prove the person in court, i.e., the defendant was *263the same person who was previously placed on probation. The state has the burden of proving this fact. McGowan v. State, 739 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.App.— Beaumont 1987, pet. ref’d). The majority holds that the announcement by the defendant that he was ready and in the courtroom “satisfied the necessary proof of identity.” I disagree. The cases cited by the majority do not stand for the proposition that such an announcement satisfies the evidentiary requirement, but rather that the failure of the defendant to raise the issue of identity at the trial level waives the point at the appellate level. I would overrule the points on this basis.
I do not believe the majority’s “further observation” concerning the bond hearing should have any relevance to the identity issue. The majority decides it can and should consider the evidence at the bond hearing relying upon Schwede v. State, 707 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.App.— Beaumont 1986, no pet.) and DeGarmo v. State, 691 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). Both of these cases, however, stand for the proposition that in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence challenges, a reviewing court can look to both stages of a trial. Here, the majority looks to a separate, ancillary hearing. I do not agree with this extension of DeGarmo, and thus, only concur in the overruling of these points.