Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Bates

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided December 14, 1994No. 1205-92Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcCORMICK, Presiding Judge

I concur with the disposition of appellee’s first ground for review. I dissent to the disposition of appellee’s second ground for review.

*312I would hold the July 3, 1991, order granting a new trial “as to punishment only” was not an appealable order because none of the provisions in Article 44.01, Y.A.C.C.P., allow an appeal from such an order by the State; Article 44.01(a)(3), V.A.C.C.P., allows the State to appeal only from an order “granting a new trial.” But see State v. Kanapa, 795 S.W.2d 36, 37 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no pet.). Since the July 3, 1991, order, was not an…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rodarte v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1993
  2. State v. Kanapa, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1990

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

Powered by the Exa API