Uranga, John Iii ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •             IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    OF TEXAS
    NO. PD-0385-08
    JOHN URANGA, III, Appellant
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS
    ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
    FROM THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
    WICHITA COUNTY
    Meyers, J., filed a concurring opinion.
    CONCURRING OPINION
    I agree with the majority that there was no error in this case. However, I disagree
    with the path taken to reach that result. Article 37.07, Section 3, of the Code of Criminal
    Procedure–“Evidence of prior criminal record in all criminal cases after a finding of
    guilty”–states,
    Regardless of the plea and whether the punishment be assessed by the judge
    or the jury, evidence may be offered by the state and the defendant as to any
    matter the court deems relevant to sentencing, including but not limited to
    the prior criminal record of the defendant, his general reputation, his
    Uranga concurrence–Page 2
    character, an opinion regarding his character, the circumstances of the
    offense for which he is being tried, and, notwithstanding Rules 404 and
    405, Texas Rules of Evidence, any other evidence of an extraneous crime or
    bad act that is shown beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence to have been
    committed by the defendant or for which he could be held criminally
    responsible, regardless of whether he has previously been charged with or
    finally convicted of the crime or act.
    T EX. C ODE C RIM. P ROC. A NN. art. 37.07, § 3. Under Article 37.07, the extraneous,
    unadjudicated offense at issue could properly be offered at the punishment stage. In fact,
    it seems that jurors are encouraged to punish a defendant in their deliberations for any
    extraneous offenses offered at the punishment phase. Therefore, the trial court’s hearing
    on the question of actual bias by this juror and any subsequent discussion regarding a
    mistrial was unnecessary.
    Though I have long disliked Article 37.07's broad allowance for the consideration
    of extraneous crimes, it nevertheless controls the resolution of this case. For this reason, I
    respectfully concur.
    Meyers, J.
    Filed: November 17, 2010
    Publish
    

Document Info

Docket Number: PD-0385-08

Filed Date: 11/17/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/16/2015