Legal Opinion · Dissent

Aguirre-Mata v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided May 14, 2003No. 2115-00Published

1DissentHolcomb, J.

I cannot fault the court of appeals for conducting the Rule 44.2(b)1 harm analysis this Court instructed it to perform on remand. However, regardless of whether I believe this Court’s initial opinion was correctly decided, the appellant, at least on remand, raised, as harm, the constitutional claim this Court found he failed to adequately raise previously. Therefore, I would remand the case to the court of appeals to perform an analysis in line with this opinion. Because the majority does not agree, I must dissent.

Additionally, the court of appeals’ harm analysis under Rule 44.2(b) was…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. United States v. VonnSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  4. Potier v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2002
  5. Ex Parte MorrowCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API