The opinion
CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
The application for postconviction relief pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. was prepared, filed and considered while the carving doctrine was alive and well. Thus, attention to all constitutional jeopardy protections was not concentrated on in the habeas court. So, though the carving doctrine be abandoned, principles of double ^opardy-other than those embraced in the Blockburger test — remain. See, e.g., Ex parte Rogers, 632 S.W.2d 748 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) and Ex parte Scott, 633 S.W.2d 823 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) (Dissenting Opinion).
The Court does not address the question of “whether the repetition of proof required by successive prosecutions against [appellant] would otherwise entitle him to the additional protections” offered by other tenets of jeopardy law. See Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, n. 6, 166-167 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, n. 6, 2225 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). If it be that the record is such that the question is not fairly presented, we should remand the cause to the habeas court to permit development of relevant evidence.
I respectfully dissent.
ONION, P. J., and TEAGUE, J., join in this opinion.