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