No. 812-84 | Tex. Crim. App. | Mar 20, 1985
OPINION ON REFUSAL OF APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Under a heading, “SELECTIVE PROSECUTION,” the published opinion of the Austin Court of Appeals somewhat cryptically states:
“Further the evidence from the statement of facts clearly shows that since McWilliams [v. State, 634 S.W.2d 815" date_filed="1982-05-12" court="Tex. Crim. App." case_name="Ex Parte McWilliams">634 S.W.2d 815] supra, with the abandonment of the carving doctrine, multiple charges can be filed in a single criminal episode involving a single victim.”
Hughes v. State, 673 S.W.2d 654" date_filed="1984-06-13" court="Tex. App." case_name="Hughes v. State">673 S.W.2d 654, 659 (Tex.App.—Austin 1984), petition refused.
The above quoted statement should be read in light of opinions of this Court in Drake v. State, 686 S.W.2d 935" date_filed="1985-02-27" court="Tex. Crim. App." case_name="Drake v. State">686 S.W.2d 935 (Tex.Cr.App.1985) and Ex parte Siller, 686 S.W.2d 617" date_filed="1985-02-27" court="Tex. Crim. App." case_name="Ex Parte Siller">686 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), both delivered February 27, 1985.
The petition for discretionary review is refused.