Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Gollihar v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided December 16, 1987No. 249-86Published

1ConcurrenceClinton, Judge

For reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Davis v. State, 721 S.W.2d 857 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), I agree with Judge McCormick that our rules did not authorize the Court to grant review on its own motion. Moreover, unlike Davis v. State, supra, the Court did not expressly suspend the rules pursuant to Tex.R.App.Pro. 2(b).

Nevertheless, in my judgment, the petition warranted a grant in accordance with Id., Rule 202 in that in his Ground for Review appellant claimed former article 40.09 operated to deny him effective assistance of counsel and under his “Reason for Review” appellant made clear…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Evitts v. LuceySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Davis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1986
  3. Gollihar v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1986
  4. Ward v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1986

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

Powered by the Exa API