Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sifford v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided February 6, 1986No. 13-85-320-CRPublished

1DissentNye, Chief Justice

The majority’s opinion holds that the trial court committed error in refusing to quash the indictment because the indictment charged two separate offenses. Based on this holding, the conviction for aggravated sexual assault is reversed. I respectfully dissent because the error, if any, was harmless.

In reversing for joinder of two offenses in a single indictment, the majority relies on the construction of TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 21.24(a) given by Drake v. State, 686 S.W.2d 935, 943-44 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) and Ex parte Siller, 686 S.W.2d *575617, 620 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). Those cases…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Almanza v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
  2. Maddox v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
  3. Drake v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
  4. Hawkins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1981
  5. Ex Parte SillerCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API