Billy Joe Garza v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 12, 2017
• Docket: 07-15-00444-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________

No. 07-15-00444-CV ________________________

BILLY JOE GARZA, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 106th District Court Garza County, Texas Trial Court No. 88-1584; Honorable Carter T. Schildknecht, Presiding

April 12, 2017

ORDER Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

On December 28, 2016, this court affirmed the order of the trial court denying the

post-conviction motion of Appellant, Billy Joe Garza, for exemption from sex-offender

registration. See Garza v. State, No. 07-15-00444-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13757

(Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 28, 2016, no pet. h.). Thereafter, Appellant’s motion for

rehearing was denied without written order. See Garza v. State, No. 07-15-00444-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 1663 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 27, 2017, no pet. h.). Pending

before this court is Appellant’s Motion for Requesting Extension of Time to File Motion

for En Banc Reconsideration, wherein he requests additional time to research and

prepare “legal work” asking this court to reconsider, en banc, its previous decisions. We

deny that motion.

In Texas, a motion for en banc reconsideration of an order or opinion issued by

an intermediate appellate court is a request to have all the members of the court

participate in the decision, rather than the originally assigned three-judge panel. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 41.2. While the Seventh Court of Appeals is normally a four-judge court,

currently only three positions are filled.

Here, the original opinion and order denying rehearing were decided by a panel

consisting of Chief Justice Quinn and Associate Justices Campbell and Pirtle. Because

Justices Quinn, Campbell, and Pirtle comprise the entire current body of the court,

Appellant’s request for en banc reconsideration would be moot. Because an en banc

reconsideration would be moot, we conclude Appellant’s motion for extension of time is

also moot.

It is so ordered.

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice

Campbell, J., concurring. 2