Hicks v. Duncan

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hicks v. Duncan

662 S.W.2d 3, 1983 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1198

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 19, 1983

DocketNo. 407-83

StatusPublished

This text of 662 S.W.2d 3 (Hicks v. Duncan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hicks v. Duncan, 662 S.W.2d 3, 1983 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1198 (Tex. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

DISSENTING OPINION TO COURT’S REFUSING PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TEAGUE, Judge.

Invoking this Court’s Rules 302(c)(6) and 304(a), Hon. Jimmie Duncan, the elected judge of the County Criminal Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County, pro se, and Hon. John Holmes, the District Attorney of Harris County, acting on behalf of the State of Texas, have each filed petitions for discretionary review with this Court. Their complaints are centered on what they claim to be erroneous factual and legal statements which are contained in an opinion the First Court of Appeals issued in its cause entitled Hicks v. Duncan, 651 S.W.2d 871 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1983).

After carefully reviewing all of the records before this Court which concern the opinion of the Court of Appeals, I find that Judge Duncan and Mr. Holmes have correctly asserted in their respective petitions that the opinion of the Court of Appeals was advisory and is chockfull of erroneous major factual and legal statements.

This Court should expressly overrule the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Because it does not do so, I respectfully dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DISSENTING OPINION TO COURT’S REFUSING PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TEAGUE, Judge.

Invoking this Court’s Rules 302(c)(6) and 304(a), Hon. Jimmie Duncan, the elected judge of the County Criminal Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County, pro se, and Hon. John Holmes, the District Attorney of Harris County, acting on behalf of the State of Texas, have each filed petitions for discretionary review with this Court. Their complaints are centered on what they claim to be erroneous factual and legal statements which are contained in an opinion the First Court of Appeals issued in its cause entitled Hicks v. Duncan, 651 S.W.2d 871 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1983).

After carefully reviewing all of the records before this Court which concern the opinion of the Court of Appeals, I find that Judge Duncan and Mr. Holmes have correctly asserted in their respective petitions that the opinion of the Court of Appeals was advisory and is chockfull of erroneous major factual and legal statements.

This Court should expressly overrule the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Because it does not do so, I respectfully dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

662 S.W.2d 3, 1983 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-duncan-texcrimapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack