aside counsel’s later statements in light of his earlier statements and the other evidence of incompetency. This issue is also worthy of our consideration. See Robinson, 383 U.S. at 384, 86 S.Ct. at 841 (“it is contradictory to argue that a defendant may be incompetent, and yet knowingly and intelligently “waive’ his right to have the court determine his capacity to stand trial”). For the reasons stated herein, I dissent to the majority’s improvident grant of appellant’s petition. CLINTON, BAIRD and OVERSTREET, JJ., join. 1 . Sisco was a panel opinion, in which one judge wrote the opinion, another judge concurred in the result and a third judge dissented. However, its holding has since been adopted by a majority of the Court. Williams v. State, 663 S.W.2d 832, 834 (Tex.Crim.App.1984)
holding that the penalty is applicable holding sisco standard applicable throughout article 4602 holding the applicable standard of review in addressing the sufficiency of the evidence is manifest error holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met holding rule applicable to witness