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

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

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.