Court Opinion

ID: 9676749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:32:01.449323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:50.871732
License: Public Domain

On Appellant's Second Motion for Rehearing
McDonald, judge.
Appellant insists that Pearce v. State, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 301, 23 S.W. 15, is incorrect if the holdings of this court in its original opinion and on motion for rehearing are correct.
We have reviewed with the utmost care our prior holdings and the cases cited therein.
The writer is also impressed with the opinion written by Judge Simkins in Pearce, supra. A careful analysis of Pearce is most revealing. The majority holding of this court as expressed in Pearce was not in the opinion written by Judge Simkins, however. The views of the majority are expressed by then-Presiding Judge Hurt and Judge Davidson in their short opinion following the opinion by Judge Simkins.
We remain convinced that our prior opinions correctly disposed of this case.
Appellant’s second motion for rehearing is overruled.