Aguirre-Mata v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
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
- Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. VonnSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Potier v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2002
- Ex Parte MorrowCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.