Ex Parte Terry Lynn Spies

Opinion

Concurring memorandum opinion issued April 12, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

For precisely that reason, I would not go further to address the merits of the

constitutionality of section 33.021(c) by attempting to distinguish it from section

33.021(b) and the holdings in Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013),

and Ex parte Chance, 439 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (mem.). See

VanDevender v. Woods, 222 S.W.3d 430, 433 (Tex. 2007) (noting “the cardinal

principle of judicial restraint—if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary

not to decide more”).

Michael Massengale Justice

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-14-00925-CR ——————————— EX PARTE TERRY LYNN SPIES, Appellant On Appeal from the 337th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1343443-A CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION I join the court’s holding that Terry Lynn Spies failed to preserve error on any legal argument that section 33.021(c) of the Texas Penal Code is unconstitutional as applied to him. Not only did Spies fail to present any substantive legal argument to the trial court, he also failed to present an adequate brief including a legal argument to this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1, 38.1(i).