Court Opinion

ID: 9776103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:19:02.697806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:34.413430
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion and Judge Keller’s concurring opinion. I file this short concurrence to respond to a misconception at work in Judge Baird’s dissenting opinion. This dissenting opinion claims my dissenting opinion in Bauder v. State took the position that this Court is not “free to interpret our Constitution as providing less protection.”1 This is incorrect.2

. See Hulit v. State, 982 S.W.2d 431, 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) (Baird, J., dissenting) citing Bauder v. State, 921 S.W.2d 696, 706-07 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996) (McCormick, P.J., dissenting).

. See Bauder, 921 S.W.2d at 706 fn. 5 (McCormick, P.J., dissenting) (Texas' double jeopardy constitutional provision actually provides less protection than its federal counterpart), and at 703 (Maloney, J., concurring) (pointing out that my dissenting opinion in Bauder "interprets Article 1, Section 14 as being narrower than the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment”).