eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2004-11

Raymond Edward Olivas v. State ( 2004 )


Menu:

  •  

    IN THE

    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

     


    No. 10-02-00308-CR

    No. 10-02-00309-CR

    No. 10-02-00310-CR

     

    Raymond Edward Olivas,

                                                                          Appellant

     v.

     

    The State of Texas,

                                                                          Appellee

     

     

      

     


    From the 272nd District Court

    Brazos County, Texas

    Trial Court Nos. 29252F-272, 29311F-272 and 29308F-272

     

    DISSENTING Opinion

     

          A majority of this Court has previously found unassigned error.  E.g., Hailey v. State, 50 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), rev’d, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); In re B.L.D., 56 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001) (per curiam), rev’d, 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003). The Court has been reversed.  E.g., Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118, 121-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1060 (2003); In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 350-51 (Tex. 2003), cert. denied sub nom. Dossey v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Reg. Servs., 124 S. Ct. 1674 (2004). There is virtually no such thing as unassigned error.  Id.  There is none to be addressed here.

          A majority of this Court has previously found fundamental error.  E.g., Rushing v. State, 50 S.W.3d 715, 722-25 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), aff’d on other grounds, 85 S.W.3d 283, 284-87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); B.L.D., 56 S.W.3d at 214-15; In re J.F.C., 57 S.W.3d 66, 74 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), rev’d, 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002). The Court has been reversed and been held to have erred.  E.g., Rushing v. State, 85 S.W.3d 283, 284-87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 350-51; In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 272-74, 277-79 (Tex. 2002). There is almost no such thing as fundamental error.  Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 340-42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 887-89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (reasonable doubt instruction not absolute systemic requirement).  There is no fundamental error in the charge without egregious harm. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh’g). There is no fundamental error here.

          The majority again finds unassigned and fundamental error here.  I dissent.

    TOM GRAY

    Chief Justice

    Dissenting opinion delivered and filed November 10, 2004

    Publish