# Cartwright v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · September 17, 1975 · 527 S.W.2d 535

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683111

## Case

- **Full name:** Henry Earl CARTWRIGHT, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** September 17, 1975
- **Citations:** 527 S.W.2d 535; 1975 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1076
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Odom
- **Judges:** Onion, Morrison, Odom
- **Cited by:** 28 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/9683111

## Opinion text

ODOM, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion of the majority, but take exception to the closing assertion in footnote 6 of that opinion. It is true that a statutory requirement, such as that of Article 40.09(4), V.A.C.C.P., relied upon in this case, should be interpreted with uniform consistency. See the dissenting opinions in Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 496 S.W.2d 566 . Nevertheless, the meaning of a statute of diverse parts detailing various requirements in different terms, such as Article 26.13, V.A.C.C.P., both before and after amendment by the 64th Legislature, cannot be stated so simply. Had the Legislature intended but a single standard or requirement in such a statute, it would have used uniform language or parallel construction throughout. Instead, by enumerating different standards in different terminology, it obviously intended a difference in the requirements, justifying a difference in interpretation from one part to the next. See my concurring opinion in Cameron v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 508 S.W.2d 618, 619 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683111. Public record. Not legal advice.