# Ex Parte Brown

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 21, 1989 · 773 S.W.2d 332

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778931

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Robert Sammy BROWN
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 21, 1989
- **Citations:** 773 S.W.2d 332; 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 134; 1989 WL 65816
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Teague
- **Judges:** Davis, Teague
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9778931

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that indictment alleging defendant committed attempted murder by "stabbing with a knife" was proper notice of intent to seek deadly weapon finding

## Opinion text

TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
Although I continue to believe that Ex parte Beck, 769 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), was wrongly decided by this Court, *334 and will vote to expressly overrule it if and when the opportunity presents itself, what concerns me in this cause, given what a majority of this Court has written and held in Ex parte Banks, 769 S.W.2d 539 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), and Ex parte Truong, 770 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), regarding this Court’s jurisdiction to decide issues raised in post-conviction applications for the writ of habeas corpus that are filed pursuant to Art. 11.07, V.A.C.C.P., is how Robert Sammy Brown, henceforth applicant, is able to present the contention that he was not given sufficient notice of the State’s intent to seek a deadly weapon pursuant to Art. 11.07 when he has not shown why he could not have raised this issue on direct appeal. Also see Mathews v. State, 768 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). Under Banks and Truong, isn’t applicant using the post-conviction writ process to avoid the direct appeal process?
I believe that the majority opinion owes an explanation to the bench and bar of this State why under Banks and Truong, also see Mathews , applicant can raise the issue he presents pursuant to the provisions of Art. 11.07. Because it fails to do so, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778931. Public record. Not legal advice.