# Lopez v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 8, 1996 · 928 S.W.2d 528

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769094

## Case

- **Full name:** David LOPEZ, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 8, 1996
- **Citations:** 928 S.W.2d 528; 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 59; 1996 WL 230192
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baird
- **Judges:** Overstreet, Baird, Mansfield, Keller, Clinton, White, McCormick
- **Cited by:** 68 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/9769094

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that law violates ex post facto prohibitions in federal and state constitutions if it “deprives one charged with a crime of any defenses that were available when the act was committed”

## Opinion text

BAIRD, J.,
concurs with note. I join the opinion of the Court but note that I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by Judge Keller in part II of her concurring and dissenting opinion. Post, 928 S.W.2d at 531. Indeed, I have previously expressed those same concerns. Saenz v. State, 843 S.W.2d 24, 30 (Tex.Cr.App.1992) (Baird, J., concurring and dissenting); and, Abdnor v. State, 808 S.W.2d 476, 478 (Tex.Cr.App.1991) (Baird, J., concurring and dissenting). However, my arguments did not carry the day and it is now the strict policy of this Court to have the court of appeals conduct a harm analysis in the first instance. See, Washington v. State, 856 S.W.2d 184, 191 (Tex.Cr. App.1993) (Meyers, J., concurring); and, Saenz, 843 S.W.2d at 29 (Clinton, J., concurring).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769094. Public record. Not legal advice.