Court Opinion

ID: 9759289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:11:18.794074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:00.818437
License: Public Domain

WHITHAM, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result. I remain of the views expressed in my concurrence in Schin v. State, 744 S.W.2d 370, 375 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988, pet. ref’d). Therefore, to my mind, the receiving State, having set the provisions of the Agreement in motion, must bear the burden of assuring that its *576provisions are enforced in the sending State. Schin, 744 S.W.2d at 375. I refer the reader to my concurrence in Schin for the reasons I am of this mind. Schin, 744 S.W.2d at 375-77. The State did not meet its burden. Hence, the proper remedy is dismissal of the indictments. See Schin, 744 S.W.2d at 376.
Nevertheless, I conclude that the remedy cannot be invoked. I reach this conclusion because the IAD is unconstitutional for the reasons expressed in my dissent in Schin. See Schin, 744 S.W.2d at 377. Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictments. Consequently, I agree that we must overrule appellant’s sixth point of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.