Keith v. State
721 S.W.2d 294
Tex. Crim. App.
1986
Check Treatment

Dissenting Opinion

McCORMICK, Judge,

dissenting.

Because the majority refuses to examine the Court of Appeals’ holding, I dissent.

Further, I would grant review on this Court’s own motion and reform the judgment of the Court of Appeals to reflect only a reversal and remand. The Court of Appeals is without authority to remand the cause with instnictions to the trial court to conduct an independent review of the evidence and determine whether a conviction upon criminally negligent homicide should be entered and upon an affirmative finding being made the trial court should then assess punishment. See Moss v. State, 574 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).

For these reasons, I dissent.

*295ONION, P.J., joins this dissenting opinion.

CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ., join second part of this opinion.





Lead Opinion

Both State's petitions for discretionary review refused.

McCORMICK, J., joined by ONION, P.J., and by CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ., to part two of the dissenting opinion.





Dissenting Opinion

Because the majority refuses to examine the Court of Appeals' holding, I dissent.

Further, I would grant review on this Court's own motion and reform the judgment of the Court of Appeals to reflect only a reversal and remand. The Court of Appeals is without authority to remand the cause with instructions to the trial court to conduct an independent review of the evidence and determine whether a conviction upon criminally negligent homicide should be entered and upon an affirmative finding being made the trial court should then assess punishment. See Moss v.State, 574 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978).

For these reasons, I dissent.

*Page 295 ONION, P.J., joins this dissenting opinion.

CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ., join second part of this opinion.