Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Ex parte Jamail

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided June 5, 1996No. 1127-95Published

1Concurrence

My previous concurring opinion in this cause is withdrawn.

I concur in the decision to refuse appellant's petition for discretionary review but I do so because I believe the petition does not comply with the applicable rules of appellate procedure. Tex.R.App.P. 202(d)(9).1

Tex.R.App.P. 202(d)(5) provides that grounds for review shall be stated in short form without argument. Rule 202(d)(6) provides the reasons for review should be in the form of a direct and concise argument, with supporting authorities, amplifying the reasons relied upon for granting review. Rule 200(c) enumerates six reasons…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hardie v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
  2. Gipson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
  3. Degrate v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1986
  4. Jamail v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990
  5. Salinas v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API