Court Opinion

ID: 9762276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:18:43.470715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:32.650733
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
It is only necessary to quote a portion of appellant’s confession to illustrate the fallacy of my brethren’s opinion herein. He stated the reason for using the name of Charles J. Williams in these words:
“The reason I got the license in this name, was because my wife Geneva Smith and myself decided to set up a way to cash forged checks for our own personal gain. * * * ”
“I asked the man if I could give him this check and he advised me that I could if I had the proper identification. * * * So I showed him the Charles J. Williams drivers license and he accepted the check.”
Surely the concerted plan to enter into a program of forging checks could not meet the test of engaging in a business as is discussed by Judge Lattimore in Ware v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 639, 65 S.W.2d 310.
This is a far stronger case than Dunlap v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 198, 332 S.W.2d 727, in which I also dissented. I respectfully dissent to the reversal of this conviction.