WILTON LARRON MAHAFFEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (Dissenting)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0795-11 WILTON LARRON MAHAFFEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON APPELLANT S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS HENDERSON COUNTY K ELLER, P.J., filed a dissenting opinion in which P RICE and K EASLER, JJ., joined. The traffic sign in this case read, lane ends, merge left. From this sign, we know that the right lane ended. If a person s lane ends, that person must change lanes to continue driving down the roadway. And changing lanes means he must signal. I agree with the court of appeals, which stated: When the right-hand lane ended, Appellant continued driving in the other southbound lane, previously the lane to his left, that had not ended. To reach that remaining lane, Appellant had to make a leftward lateral maneuver as he departed that lane for another.1 1 Mahaffey v. State, NO. 12-08-00430-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1507, at 12 (March 2, 2011) (not designated for publication). MAHAFFEY DISSENT - 2 Because appellant s lane ended,2 he was required to move into another lane, and he was required to signal before doing so. I would hold that the court of appeals correctly found that appellant executed a lane change without signaling. I respectfully dissent. Filed: April 25, 2012 Publish 2 The merge left language on the sign does not mean that the lanes merge; it is an instruction to drivers in the right lane. Had the sign said lanes merge, I would agree that no lane change occurred.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
