Court Opinion

ID: 9818605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:58:54.294549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:46:25.082269
License: Public Domain

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice,
concurring.
I believe that Appellant’s complaint, raised for the first time on appeal, is an as-applied challenge to former section 12.42(a)(1) of the penal code. I therefore agree that he forfeited his complaint by failing to raise it in the trial court and would affirm the trial court’s judgment. But I cannot join the majority’s journey beyond this holding. For the reasons eloquently expressed by Judge Cochran in her concurring opinion in Karenev,2 which I have adopted in a prior concurring and dissenting opinion,3 I therefore respectfully concur.

. Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428, 436-40 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (Cochran, J., concurring).

. See Ibenyenwa v. State, 367 S.W.3d 420, 426-29 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2012, pet. ref'd) (op. on reh’g) (Dauphinot, J., concurring and dissenting).