Court Opinion

ID: 9682607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:14:47.081335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.386840
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
As one who dissented with opinion in Jeffers v. State, 646 S.W.2d 185, 189-191 (Tex.Cr.App.1983), I adhere to the view that when the plea is guilty Craven v. State, 613 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) correctly enunciated the law with respect to appellate review and disposition of a ground of error complaining that a trial court erroneously overruled a motion to quash pointing out a defect as to form in an indictment or other charging instrument. That is, “the *175ultimate question of law is whether, assuming a defect as to form in the indictment may be found, a judgment of conviction must be ipso facto reversed without a showing of prejudice to substantial rights of appellant,” Jeffers v. State, supra, at 190 (Clinton, J., dissenting).1
*174“(a) A person commits an offense if he:
*175However, Craven was overruled by a majority of this Court in Jeffers, also a conviction on a plea of guilty. Today a majority applies the holding in the panel Jeffers opinion on original submission to find that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to quash. The rationale of the Jeffers en banc opinion on motion for rehearing is not discussed or mentioned by the majority. Presumably it is not being implicated.
Accordingly, I concur in the judgment of the Court.
W.C. DAVIS, McCORMICK and CAMPBELL, JJ., join.

. The court followed Craven in Notan v. State, 629 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) and so did courts of appeals in, e.g., Patterson v. State, 628 S.W.2d 518 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1982) and Smith v. State, 629 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth, 1982).