## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O S

. P D

- 0 5 9 6

- 1 3 & P D

- 0 6 2 4

- 1 3

E X P A R T E C H A R L I E J

. G I L L

, A p p e l l a n t

E X P A R T E T O M M Y J O H N G I L L

, A p p e l l a n t

O N A P P E L L A N T S ’ P E T I T I O N S F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E N I N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

J A S P E R C O U N T Y

P R IC E

, J

. , f

i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n

.

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

I j o i n P a r t s I a n d I I o f t h e C o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n

. W h i l e I d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y d i s a g r e e w i t h

t h e C o u r t ’ s r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e m e r i t s o f t h e S t a t e ’ s s e p a r a t i o n o f p o w e r s a r g u m e n t i n P a r t I I I

o f i t s o p i n i o n

, t h e C o u r t d o e s n o t e x p l a i n w h y i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o a d d r e s s t h a t i s s u e

. T h e

S t a t e n e v e r r a i s e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f A r t i c l e 1 7

. 1 5 1 o n s e p a r a t i o n o f p o w e r s

— o r a n y

o t h e r

— g r o u n d s u n t i l i t s r e p l y b r i e f i n t h i s C o u r t

, a f t e r w e h a d a l r e a d y g r a n t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t s ’

p e t i t i o n s f

o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s n e v e r p a s s e d o n t h e i s s u e

— n o r

,

i n d e e d

, w a s i t e v e r c a l l e d u p o n t o d o s o

.GI L L — 2

W e o r d i n a r i l y r e v i e w o n l y t h e “ d e c i s i o n s ” o f t h e c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s

. I a m a w a r e t h a t 1

t h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s

, a n d t h a t

, o v e r t h e p a s t h a l f

- d e c a d e o r s o

, o n e s u c h e x c e p t i o n t h a t t h e 2

C o u r t h a s e x p l i c i t l y c a r v e d o u t i s t h a t a p a r t y w h o p r e v a i l s i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t b u t t h e n l o s e s i n

t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s m a y r a i s e a n a r g u m e n t f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n h i s o w n p e t i t i o n f o r

d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w t o j u s t i f y r e v e r s i n g t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s ’ s j u d g m e n t

— e v e n t h o u g h h e

d i d n o t r a i s e t h a t a r g u m e n t i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f b e l o w

. P e r h a p s w h a t t h e C o u r t i n v o k e s t o d a y 3

t o j u s t i f y a d d r e s s i n g t h e S t a t e ’ s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s e p a r a t i o n o f p o w e r s a r g u m e n t i s a n e x t e n s i o n

o f t h a t e x c e p t i o n

— t o a l l o w a p a r t y w h o h a s p r e v a i l e d b o t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d i n t h e c o u r t

o f a p p e a l s t o r a i s e a n a l t e r n a t i v e b a s i s f o r j u s t i f y i n g t h e c o u r t o f

a p p e a l s ’ s j u d g m e n t f

o r t h e

f i r s t t i m e i n a r e

p l y b r i e f o n t h e o

p p o s i n g p a r t

y ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w

. B u t

, i f 4

s o

, t h e C o u r t d o e s n o t s a y s o

, a n d i t i s n o t s e l f

- e v i d e n t t o m e t h a t t h e e x c e p t i o n s h o u l d e x t e n d

1

E.g.

, Davison v. State , 405 S.W .3d 682, 691 & n.54 ( Tex. Crim . App. 2013).

2

See id

. at 691-92 (“[T]here are exceptions to this prac tice, and when the proper resolution

of the rema ining issue is clea r, we will sometimes dispose of the case in the name of judicial

economy .”)

3

See Volosen v. State

, 227 S.W .3d 77, 80 (Tex

. Crim. App. 2007); Rhodes v. State

, 240

S.W .3d 882, 886 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). See also id

. at 892-95 (Price, J

., dissenting) (trac ing

the evolution of the Court’s holding that a party who preva ils in the trial court but loses in the court

of appea ls may raise an arg ument for the first time in a petition for disc retionary revie w, without

having made the a

rg ument in a re ply

brief in the c ourt of appe als).

4

See Morris v. State

, 361 S.W .3d 649, 669-70 n.117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (invoki n g

Volosen and Rhodes in support of the proposition that, having preva iled both in the trial court and

in the court of appea ls, the State may ask this Court to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fac t for

the first time in its reply

brief on the appellant’ s petition for discre tionary revie w).GI L L — 3

t h a t f a r

. P e r h a p s t h e C o u r t f

e e l s t h a t a n e x p l a n a t i o n i s s o m e h o w u n n e c e s s a r y

, s i n c e i t r e j e c t s

t h e S t a t e ’ s s e p a r a t i o n o f p o w e r s a r g u m e n t i n a n y e v e n t

. B u t t h e C o u r t d o e s n o t e v e n s a y t h a t

m u c h

.

U n l e s s a n d u n t i l t h e C o u r t c a n j u s t i f y r e a c h i n g t h e m e r i t s o f t h e S t a t e ’ s b e l a t e d

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a r g u m e n t

, I m u s t c o n t e n t m y s e l f w i t h j o i n i n g t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e C o u r t a n d

P a r t s I a n d I I

— b u t n o t P a r t I I I

— o f i t s o p i n i o n

.

F I L E D : N o v e m b e r 2 0

, 2 0 1 3

P U B L I S H