rehearing">

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

ODOM, Judge.

Appellant now asserts that “Since the Court rendered its Original Opinion on March 29, 1972, the cases of Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473, 92 S.Ct. 1014, 31 L.Ed.2d 374 (1972) and Wood v. State, [Tex.Cr.App.,] 478 S.W.2d 513, have been rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court and this Honorable Court. These cases reiterate the position that an invalid conviction cannot be used to prove guilt, enhance punishment, or impeachment.”

True, the cases cited by appellant stand for the proposition that he alleges. However, appellant overlooks two important elements in Loper and Wood; namely, that the records show that they were indigent and did not waive counsel. Such is not the situation in the case at bar since, as was pointed out in the original opinion, there “has been no showing that he (appellant) was indigent or deprived of counsel.” Further, there is no showing that appellant did not waive his right to counsel. See, e. g., Frazier v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S. W.2d 375 (1972); Ex parte Bird, Tex.Cr. App., 449 S.W.2d 41.

There being no showing of indigency or waiver, we do not reach the question of whether the introduction of the Oklahoma conviction was harmless error. Compare Wood v. State, supra.

Remaining convinced that a correct disposition was made of the case on original submission, the motion for rehearing is overruled.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress