Case ID: sw2d_977/html/0594-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. MeCORMICK, Presiding Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte Guillermo YBARRA.
    No. 1694-96.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
    May 13, 1998.
    Richard B. Gould, McAllen, for Appellant.
    Betty Marshall, Assistant State’s Attorney, Matthew Paul, Austin, for State.
   OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus contending he was entitled to discharge pursuant to Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 32.01 because he was indicted outside the “next term of court” as set out in art. 32.01. After a hearing, the trial judge ordered the indictment dismissed with prejudice. The State appealed and the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the trial judge. State v. Ybarra, 942 S.W.2d 35 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1996). We granted review to determine the correctness of that decision.

However, after carefully considering the question for review and the briefs before us, we find that our decision to grant the State’s petition for discretionary review was improvident. Accordingly, the petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

MANSFIELD, J., dissents.

MeCORMICK, Presiding Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent to dismissing the State’s petition for discretionary review as improvidently granted. The issue before this Court is the same issue presented in Ex Parte Norton, 969 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.Cr.App.1998). That issue is whether former Article 32.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prior to its 1997 amendment, is unconstitutional.

I would address the merits of the issue presented in this case as well. Therefore, I dissent for the same reasons set forth in my opinion in Ex Parte Norton, supra.

KELLER, Judge, dissenting.

The sole issue on which we granted review (the “mootness” issue) is the same as that raised in ground two of the petition in State v. Condran, 951 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1997, pet. granted). I dissent to the dismissal of the petition in this case for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Ex Parte Norton, 969 S.W.2d 3, delivered today.