Court Opinion

ID: 9759269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:10:34.579503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:00.638082
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing in which he reurges the points of error from his brief and requests that we reconsider those points. We find merit in two of appellant’s contentions.
Appellant contends that we misquoted the facts when we stated that Freída Fon-dren identified him as the man she had seen walking around the complainant’s townhome. Ms. Fondren identified the skirt appellant wore as the shirt she saw on the man she had seen earlier walking around the complainant’s townhome. With that correction, we conclude the testimony of the other witnesses sufficiently corroborates the testimony of Ms. Barksdale and tends to connect appellant with the commission of the burglary.
Appellant next contends that we failed to provide any instructions on whether the State would be permitted a second opportunity to present evidence of identity and finality in the California conviction. At the new punishment hearing, the State shall not be allowed to relitigate the issue of appellant’s California conviction as we find that the evidence has been offered and is insufficient for enhancement purposes. See Ex Parte Augusta, 639 S.W.2d 481, 485 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). Regardless of which constitutional provision is applied, the State cannot have “two bites at the apple.”
We correct our opinion with regard to these matters and overrule appellant’s motion for rehearing.
ROBERTSON and DRAUGHN, JJ., concur in the result only.