Court Opinion

ID: 9678063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:09:48.306738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:01.633293
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
W.C. DAVIS, Judge.
We granted appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for rehearing to clarify our original opinion. The record from the post-trial hearing conducted by the trial court demonstrates that appellant’s attorney was in no way responsible for the omitted not guilty verdict form. The omission was purely a clerical error. The implication in our original opinion, that appellant’s counsel “directed” the omission, is incorrect.
However, we will not disturb our original holding that Bolden v. State, 489 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) controls the instant case. Like Bolden, there was no trial objection. We deny appellant’s motion for rehearing.