Court Opinion

ID: 9863212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:12:49.62763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:47:55.343696
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
Finding that the court of appeals should first determine which of two surviving convictions must be dismissed, the majority still leaves that court without guidance in the premises.
In similar circumstances when this Court opted for a single conviction we used a variety of measures to ascertain and then uphold the first conviction, e,g., Holcomb v. State, 745 S.W.2d 903 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), and cases cited at 908; McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), and cases cited at 655. That option is not immutable, however.
Usually the basic error in such cases is failure to require the State to elect the offense it would pursue to conviction and punishment. Given the general power and authority of the attorney for the State to make those kinds of decisions, it is appropriate to accord to the prosecuting attorney an opportunity to make known the option of the State.
The better forum in which to accomplish the ultimate objective of a remand in these circumstances is, in my judgment, the trial court. Because the opinion of the Court does not absolutely bar the court of appeals from taking that route, I concur in the judgment of the Court.