Court Opinion

ID: 9682379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:10:21.796774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:38.976990
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant’s motion for rehearing cites us Ex parte Siller, 686 S.W.2d 617 decided by the Court of Criminal Appeals on February 27, 1985, contending,
“The trial court committed reversible error because after assessing punishment in the first count of the indictment, for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit rape, the Court was without authority to enter judgment and sentence as to the other burglary and rape conviction since multiple sentences cannot be obtained on separate counts in the same indictment.”
We have carefully examined Ex parte Siller, supra, and we find that it indeed supports appellant’s above quoted contention. We, therefore, set aside and vacate the trial court’s convictions and sentences in Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment, i.e., burglary of a habitation to commit theft (which our opinion has already vacated), and aggravated rape.
In all other respects, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.