Court Opinion

ID: 9768812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:51:41.666335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:46.860604
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Justice,
concurring.
In the distinctly unusual posture of things in these causes, truly there is no extant precedent directly in point. Essentially, the opinions of the Court engage in an analysis of germane constitutional and statutory provisions to conclude that there has been a misjoinder of offense, such that “the trial court was required to sustain appellant’s request for election,” and that “ ‘case’ equals conviction for a single of*185fense [so that] convictions and sentences for separate offenses ... are considered separate ‘cases’ [for purposes of prescribing jurisdiction on direct appeal].” While harboring some reservations, mainly about incidental observations made along the way and what may be less than complete examination of the meaning of "case,” I join the opinions.1

. In Cause No. 69,023, for example, there are allusions to "ambiguities” in prior applications of jthe concept of "transactions.” In Causes Nos. 0069-85 and 0070-85, for another, the conclusion seems further supported by the fact that "criminal case” and "criminal action” are used interdhjangeably throughout the Code of Criminal' Procedure, the latter ordinarily understood to be a "criminal prosecution” seeking to deter-mihe1 guilt or innocence of one accused of a pedal offense. See generally, Kemper v. State, 63 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 138 S.W. 1025, 1038-1039 (1911).