Court Opinion

ID: 9759169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:08:01.716068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:59.879159
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion.1 I would note that in this record, as demonstrated by *707recitation in the majority opinion of the jury verdict forms, paragraphs three to six of the indictment were referred to as “counts.” These paragraphs alleged prior felony convictions for the enhancement of punishment. They are therefore not “counts” and should not be referred to as such.
In 1942 the Court of Criminal Appeals in Square v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 219, 167 S.W.2d 192, 193-194 (1942), explained:
“The indictment did not contain three separate counts. There really was but one count which charged theft, and the allegations of his former convictions of felonies less than capital were but allegations, when sustained by proof, to enhance his punishment. To refer to such allegations as ‘counts’ is a loose expression which may appear in some adjudicated cases. The meaning of a ‘count’ is that it charges a distinct offense, and where there are more than one count in an indictment, each count must definitely charge the commission of an offense so that the court may submit the case upon either one of the counts which is supported by evidence in order that the punishment prescribed therefore may, upon conviction, be imposed upon the accused. The basis for a conviction in this case rested entirely upon the charge of theft. If the State failed to sustain said allegation by evidence then the allegation of former convictions, no matter how well sustained by evidence, also passed out. In other words, when the main circus folded up and moved out all side shows went with it.” (Emphasis supplied.)

. If the prosecutor had used cause numbers, the name of the courts and counties, when interrogating appellant about his prior convictions, many difficulties would have been removed.