Rodney Camile Smith v. State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 24, 2004
Docket10-00-00316-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Rodney Camile Smith v. State of Texas (Rodney Camile Smith v. State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rodney Camile Smith v. State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion



IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


No. 10-00-00316-CR



     RODNEY CAMILE SMITH,

                                                                         Appellant

     v.


     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                         Appellee


From the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Court # 15511

DISSENTING OPINION

      Once again, I cannot agree to reverse a conviction because of something the defendant wanted. See Bryant v. State, No. 10-01-00280-CR, 2004 Tex. App. Lexis 2326 (Waco March 10, 2004, no pet. h.)(Gray, C.J., dissenting).

      Smith stipulated to two prior DWI convictions. On the record, he admitted that by signing the stipulation, the State did not have to prove up the convictions and he would avoid discussion of his other priors. The State offered the stipulation of those convictions into evidence. Smith specifically stated, “We have no objection to the stipulation.” The stipulation was admitted. Smith cannot now complain that one of those convictions was too remote to use. And he certainly should not be acquitted on this issue.

      Section 49.09(e) is not an element of felony DWI; it is more like a rule of admissibility. Weaver v. State, 87 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The situation in this case and the issue raised by Smith on appeal has already been decided, twice, by the First Court of Appeals in Houston; and in each case, the Court of Criminal Appeals refused a petition for discretionary review. See St. Clair v. State, 101 S.W.3d 737, 740 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d); Bower v. State, 77 S.W.3d 514, 518 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d). Houston was right; the majority of this court is wrong. And I respectfully dissent.

                                                                   TOM GRAY

                                                                   Chief Justice


Dissenting opinion delivered and filed March 24, 2004

Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Weaver v. State
87 S.W.3d 557 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Bower v. State
77 S.W.3d 514 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
St. Clair, Tracy Lee v. State
101 S.W.3d 737 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rodney Camile Smith v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodney-camile-smith-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2004.