State of Texas v. Sanavongxay, Soutchay

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1809-10 THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

SOUTCHAY SANAVONGXAY, Appellee

ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

TARRANT COUNTY

Meyers, J., filed an opinion dissenting to the denial of the State's motion for rehearing.

O P I N I O N

I would grant the State's motion for rehearing because I agree that an oral ruling, when it is clear and on the record, should be considered sufficient to allow the State to appeal. The trial court's refusal to enter a written order supporting an oral ruling interferes with the State's right to appeal under Code of Criminal Procedure article 44.01(a). The point of article 44.01(a)(5) is to allow the State to appeal a trial court's decision to grant a motion to suppress, and the article does not require that an appealable order be in writing. Here, it is undeniable from the record that the trial court ruled to exclude the State's DNA evidence. I would grant the State's motion for rehearing and expand our holding in State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) to include such rulings.

Meyers, J.

Filed: May 2, 2012

Publish