Auzenne v. State

The indictment should be held sufficient for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinions in Ex parte Cannon, 546 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.Cr.App., 1976); Reynolds v. State, 547 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.Cr.App., 1976); Herrin v. State, 547 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.Cr.App., 1977). See also the concurring opinion in Jones v. State, 545 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.Cr.App., 1975, motion for rehearing, January 26, 1977).