Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): S.W.2d 268, 272 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1992, no pet.); Freeman v. State, 786 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no pet.). The order approving the revisions to the Texas Rules of Evidence stated that the amended rules take effect clusion by arguing that the retroactive application of current Rule 606(b) disturbs his substantive right to appellate review of his complaint. Although the defendant has a vested, substantive right to legislatively-granted appellate review, he has no vested right in the procedural mechanisms for reviewing his conviction or punishment. See Fowler v. State, 991 S.W.2d 258, 261 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (procedural mechanisms for reviewing conviction not a vested and substantive right); Montez v. State, 975 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the trial court’s application of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding rules of appellate procedure are obviously procedural in nature (B) holding that procedural rules are presumptively nonretroactive (C) recognizing appellate courts are not free to rewrite rules (D) holding rules of procedure interpreted in same manner as statutes (E) holding that new rules of criminal procedural are generally not retroactive
Output (English): recognizing appellate courts are not free to rewrite rules