# Holifield v. State

> Court of Appeals of Texas · April 8, 1992 · 827 S.W.2d 623

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5080815

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel Lamonte HOLIFIELD v. The STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 8, 1992
- **Citations:** 827 S.W.2d 623; 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 1146; 1992 WL 94985
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Burgess
- **Judges:** Walker, Burgess
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5080815

## Opinion text

BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s disposition of the extraneous offense points of error. I believe the introduction was error, see Huggins v. State, 795 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1990, pet. ref’d) (concurring opinion) and I cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence made no contribution to an assessment of the punishment, see Hunter v. State, 805 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1991, pet. granted) (dissenting opinion). Furthermore, I believe Judge Onion’s analysis of Tex.Code CRIm.PROC.Ann. art. 37.07 § 3(a) (Vernon Supp.1992) in Grunsfeld v. State, 813 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, pet. granted), is well reasoned and correct. See also Slott v. State, 824 S.W.2d 225 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1992, pet. filed). Since the majority feels otherwise, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5080815. Public record. Not legal advice.