Court Opinion

ID: 9680093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:19:32.077887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:25.373992
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the results reached by the opinion authored for the court by Judge Douglas, but take vigorous exception to footnote # 1. The information charged theft of service under one mode of Y.T. C.A., Penal Code, Section 31.04, while the proof showed the other mode. If this case is to be re-tried, most likely there will have to be a new information filed so as to correspond to the proof available. Since the present information will therefore not likely be used, I see no necessity for this court, with the heaviest caseload of any State appellate court in this nation, to write upon the sufficiency of an information that does not control the proper disposition of the case before this court. While I have great doubts about the sufficiency of the information, as I think would be entertained by most fair-minded members of the bench and bar, despite certain form books published prior to any interpretation of the new Penal Code by this court, I resent the implication in said footnote # 1 of the court’s opinion that the majority has declined to write on a subject not necessary to the proper disposition of this case, when even the writer of the opinion does not state his view that the information is sufficient. I did not think until today that Judge Douglas approved of this court engaging in the practice of issuing declaratory judgments.