Court Opinion

ID: 9683270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:25:37.267461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:46.778482
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge,
concurring.
The majority is correct in affirming the conviction, but it should be noted that it *554does not follow the opinion in Urtado v. State, 605 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) where the defendant testified that he did not know his companions were going to attempt to burglarize the house, that he took the two women in his car to the house but he knew nothing of their plans. He was on the premises and was running his hand over the window screen in a cutting manner. The screen was cut. He fled when a neighbor of the owner of the house approached. This Court gave credence to the defendant’s testimony and reversed the conviction.
In the present case, this Court does not give credence to appellant’s testimony. What is the difference?
The judgment in this case should be affirmed, but the Urtado case should be overruled or followed by the majority. See the dissenting opinion in Urtado v. State, supra.