Avery v. State
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Justice PERKES.
The majority’s opinion is premised on a mistaken notion that the 1989 recodification of the eontrolled-substances fraud statute was a substantive change in the law. On that premise, the majority interprets the meaning of “fraudulent prescription form” so narrowly that it would be virtually impossible to violate the statute by use of a fraudulent prescription form. The majority effectively defeats the Legislature’s intent to prohibit fraudulent procurement of controlled substances using a fraudulent prescription form. For these reasons, I respectfully…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Boykin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
- Beedy v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2008
- Beedy v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2006
- Ex Parte HolbrookCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1980
- Beaty v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2005