Court Opinion

ID: 9862939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:32:02.729893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:34:46.547459
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
In Ex Parte Brown, 757 S.W.2d 367, (Tex.Cr.App.1988), I was content to dissent without written opinion. The fallacy in the opinion of the Court seemed selfevident: two pen packets showing historical facts that appellant had twice been convicted of felony offenses constitute no evidence whatsoever for a rational trier of fact to find the essential element that gives meaning and effect to those facts, viz: that “the second previous felony conviction is for an offense that occurred subsequent to the first previous conviction having become final.” V.T.C.A.Penal Code, § 12.42(d).
In his concurring opinion, Judge Teague (joined by Judge Campbell) pointed out that the pen packet covering the second conviction contains the indictment alleging date of that offense and thereby “clearly shows that the offense occurred subsequent to the date when the first alleged prior conviction occurred.” Brown, supra, at 369. Thus there was ample evidence to support the jury in its “true” finding. That the majority wholly disregarded that fact is a testament to the measure of its determination to fashion a rule that will bar “such claims to be advanced in habeas proceedings.” Brown, supra, at 369.
Today, the majority writes an opinion in this cause that in all respects but one is a carbon copy of Brown. That exceptional respect is its reference to content of pen packets. See opinion at 660. Perhaps influenced by the point made by Judge Teag-ue in Brown, the majority notes that in the theft case — alleged to be the earlier conviction on August 12, 1966, see id., at 660, note 1 — the judgment in the pen packet contains “an allegation that ‘said defendant committed said offense on the 28th day of August 1965.’ ”
Is the majority making the point that no matter how uncertain the sequence of prior offenses shown in the record, so long as there are pen packets of prior convictions eo nomine they “constitute some evidentia-ry support for enhancement allegations,” and thus under Ex parte Williams, this Court may not make the inquiry “into questions concerning sufficiency of evidence,” that it just finished making?
To that for which there is no justification in law, I dissent.
DUNCAN, J., joins this opinion.