Lapasnick v. State

I concur in the result.

At the habeas corpus hearing, the State contended that the dismissal of the prior complaint and information was improper because the court did not follow correct procedure. The State did not assert that the Speedy Trial Act was unconstitutional.

*886In the original opinion on this appeal, Chief Justice Cadena, writing for the majority, observed:

Were it not for the holdings in Chacon [v. State, 745 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988) ] and Robinson [v. State, 739 S.W. 2d 795 (Tex.Crim.App.1987)], we would consider appellant’s claim in the light of such aspects of public policy as…