Lajonte James v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 202nd District Court of Bowie County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 06-00-00090-CR

Case Date: 11/07/2001

Plaintiff: Lajonte James

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 202nd District Court of Bowie County

Preview:In re Janice Rodriguez--Appeal from 413th District
Court of Johnson County
MAJORITY | MAJORITY
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-04-00165-CR
In re Janice Rodriguez
Original Proceeding
O p i n i o n[1]
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (orig.
proceeding); In re Rodriguez, No. 10-04-00152-CV, 2004 Tex.
App. LEXIS 6605 (Tex. App. Waco July 21, 2004, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Justice Vance dissenting)
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed August 25, 2004
Do not publish
[OT06]
[1] There is an apparent conflict in Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Because the author of the Dissenting Opinion has opposed
the designation of this Memorandum Opinion as a memorandum opinion it must be designated as an opinion. An
opinion may not be designated a memorandum opinion if the author of a concurrence or dissent opposes that
designation. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. The same rule, however, limits what opinions can be designated non-memorandum
opinions:
An opinion must be designated a memorandum opinion unless it does any of the following:
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/5843.html[8/20/2013 7:19:29 PM]

(a) establishes a new rule of law, alters or modifies an existing rule, or applies an existing rule to a novel fact situation
likely to recur in future cases;
(b) involves issues of constitutional law or other legal issues important to the jurisprudence of Texas;
(c) criticizes existing law; or
(d) resolves an apparent conflict of authority.
Id. This opinion does not do any of those things, and thus must be designated a memorandum opinion. Id. We have,
nevertheless, designated it as an opinion because the sentence of the rule regarding the opposition by the author of a
concurrence or dissent is more specific, and subject to less interpretation, than the later portion of the same rule above
quoted.
It does, however, remain designated do not publish pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). A question remains whether it
was the purpose of the rule to allow the author of a concurrence or dissent to publish the concurrence or dissent over
the contrary vote of the other members of the panel, and, further, to attach as an appendix to that concurrence or
dissent the opinion designated do not publish. We choose, in this instance, to leave that issue to the jurisprudential
judgment of the author, but ultimately it will be left to the rule makers to clarify.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/5843.html[8/20/2013 7:19:29 PM]

Download 5843.pdf