Yarbrough v. State

I respectfully dissent. In my opinion appellant’s conviction is subject to reversal on either of two grounds.

In his first ground of error appellant contends that the trial court had no authority to order him to appear for “sentence after mandate.” I agree.

Appellant had already been sentenced pursuant to Tex.Code Cr.P.Ann. art. 42.02. No second sentencing is authorized by law. In fact, a second sentencing is contrary to the structure of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The criminal appellate timetable, at least in some instances, is tied to sentencing. See Tex.Code Cr.P.Ann. art. 44.-08(b). If…