¶1dissenting.
¶2The majority reverses this cause even though a valid prior conviction was used for enhancement. Such conviction has not been set aside. It has not been attacked except by a contention that a void prior conviction was used to enhance it.
¶3The 1961 conviction for burglary is bad because probation was revoked when he was indigent, did not have counsel and did not waive counsel. However, this does not destroy the 1967 conviction for burglary in Cause No. 13,340 of the 47th Judicial District of Potter County which was the conviction used for enhancement of the present case.
¶4The 1961 conviction was not used for enhancement in the present case. It was stricken. The only remaining paragraph for enhancement was the 1967 conviction. It has not been used for enhancement in any other case and there is no reason that it cannot be used in the present cause. This is not like the case where one receives probation and the revocation is void. He had counsel and the 1967 conviction was final.
¶5The cases cited by the majority are not in point. They are not even close.
¶6Apparently the majority is adopting a new rule. If a prior conviction has been used for enhancement and a later decision causes it to be void, then the 'majority will prevent the use of another prior conviction even though it is valid.
¶7This conviction should not be reversed.