Sifford v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas
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
- Almanza v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
- Maddox v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
- Drake v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
- Hawkins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1981
- Ex Parte SillerCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.