Court Opinion

ID: 9766848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:00:31.669415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:26.697452
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
W.C. DAVIS, Judge.
In our original opinion in this cause delivered on April 20,1988, we held that the two amendments of Article 12.01(3)(C), which became effective September 1, 1983 were harmonious and each may be given effect.
The first amendment, Acts 1983, 68th Leg. p. 413, ch. 85, § 1 eff. Sept. 1, 1983, lengthened the statute of limitations for aggravated rape to five years. The amendment is captioned “relating to the period of limitation applicable to a prosecution for certain offenses involving sexual conduct; amending Article 12.01, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1965.”
The second amendment, Acts 1983, 68th Leg. p. 5317 ch. 977 § 7 eff. Sept. 1, 1983, created the offense of sexual assault and abolished the offense of rape prospectively. The amendment is captioned “relating to the offense of rape, aggravated rape ... redefining those offenses as assaultive offenses and revising the elements of, penalties for, and period of limitation applicable to those offenses_” The statute of limitations provided for sexual assault was five years and for all other felonies three years.
The issue appellant presents us is whether this second amendment impliedly repeals the first amendment, thus creating a three year statute of limitations for the old offense of aggravated rape. Judge Teague, writing for the Court, held on original submission that the first amendment was not impliedly revoked by the second. The effect of the second amendment was to create a new offense and abolish rape prospectively. Therefore, the first amendment did create a new statute of limitations for aggravated rape which applied to appellant under Archer v. State, 577 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Consequently, appellant was tried within the five year statute of limitations applicable at the time of his indictment.
After further review, we find that the decision reached on original submission is correct.
ONION, P.J., and CLINTON, CAMPBELL and DUNCAN, JJ., dissent.