Legal Opinion · Dissent

Baize v. Shaver

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided November 27, 1996No. 01-96-00916-CVPublished

1DissentTaft, Justice

The resolution of this mandamus turns on whether one views the proceedings below as a bond forfeiture or a restoration of property pursuant to article 47.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If this had been a bond forfeiture, I would agree there is precedent supporting the availability of mandamus relief. See De Leon v. Pennington, 759 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1988, orig. proceeding). Because the proceedings below were clearly pursuant to article 47.02, and because a clear remedy by appeal is available from an erroneous ruling made pursuant to article 47.02, I respectfully dissent…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Walker v. PackerTexas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Bretz v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
  3. Texas Appellate Practice & Educational Resource Center v. Patterson, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1995
  4. De Leon v. Pennington, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1988
  5. Nelms v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1988

1 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