Legal Opinion

Carroll, Timothy Earl v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

Decided April 10, 2002No. 09-97-00501-CRPublished

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

DON BURGESS, Justice.

I vigorously dissent. Obviously I dissent to the result, see Carroll v. State, 997 S.W.2d 399 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1999), but my real dissent is to the majority’s determination of “the scope of the instant remand.”

The Scope of the Remand

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in their unpublished opinion,1 stated:... The court of appeals did not perform a harmless error analysis. The State petitioned this Court to review the court of appeals’ failure to conduct a harm analysis.

This court recently decided that the erroneous denial of a defense challenge for…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Penry v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1995
  2. Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2001
  3. Trevino v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1999
  4. Green v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
  5. Faulder v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1987

21 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