Adkison v. State

BURGESS, Justice.

I concur in the result, but do not adopt the majority’s rationale in overruling points of error seven and eight.

Appellant urges the state did not prove the person in court, i.e., the defendant was *263the same person who was previously placed on probation. The state has the burden of proving this fact. McGowan v. State, 739 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.App.— Beaumont 1987, pet. ref’d). The majority holds that the announcement by the defendant that he was ready and in the courtroom “satisfied the necessary proof of identity.” I disagree. The cases cited by the majority do not stand for the…