Court Opinion

ID: 9638457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:44:15.093152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:06.641782
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in part and respectfully dissent in part.
I concur in this Court’s judgments to the extent that they affirm the convictions. I write separately in Cause No. 10-02-00284-CR to note that I find it curious that the majority ignores the very recent intent-to-deliver cases decided by the Court. A survey of these cases shows that the issue of intent to deliver is not nearly so close as the majority implies. See King v. State, 129 S.W.3d 680 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, no pet.); Bellard v. State, 101 S.W.3d 594 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, pet. ref'd); Bethancourt-Rosales v. State, 50 S.W.3d 650 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, pet. ref'd).
But I respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment in Cause No. 10-02-00283-CR to the extent that it reforms the trial court’s judgment to delete the deadly-weapon finding. If anyone has any question that the knife at issue is a deadly weapon, all he or she needs to do is examine it. Its length folded is 4¾6 inches. Its length open is 7⅜ inches, the blade being 3 inches from hilt to tip. The knife is not a *814traditional pocketknife with a flat back on one side and one sharp, curved side; rather, the blade is symmetrical and sharpened down both sides, coming to a point in the centerline of the holding position of the handle. It would be defined as a switchblade. See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 46.01(11)(A) (Vernon 2003). The blade is spring-loaded, and swings into an extended and locked position with the push of a button. The handle is equipped with a clip in order that the knife can be attached to a belt or the Up of a pocket, in order that the knife be easily accessible. The handle is also symmetrical, with a built-in swell at the hilt to act as a guard, and the entire handle is coated in a rubberized, slip-resistant material. The knife is classified by the Texas Penal Code as a “prohibited weapon.” See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 46.05(a)(5) (Vernon Supp.2004).
Accordingly, I concur in the judgment in Cause No. 10-02-284-CR; and in Cause No. 10-02-283-CR, I concur in this Court’s judgment to the extent that it affirms the judgment of conviction, and I respectfully dissent to the extent that this Court’s judgment reforms the judgment of the trial court to delete the deadly-weapon finding.