(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the affirmance of this case but dissent to the majority’s interpretation of the Saving Provisions regarding its application to an election to be assessed punishment under V.T.C.A., Penal Code.
The jury’s verdict of “guilty as charged in the indictment” was sufficient, under the allegations in this case, to constitute a finding of such facts as would constitute aggravated robbery under Section 29.03, Y.T. C.A., Penal Code. Accordingly, it was proper for the court, upon appellant’s election, to submit to the jury the punishment range affixed by that provision.
*885I dissent to the majority’s application of the test set out in Wright v. State, 527 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), for the reasons set out in my dissent in that case.