Court Opinion

ID: 9684866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:16:56.342948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:00.688911
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
concurring in the denial of appellant’s motion to withdraw mandate, supplement the record, grant rehearing, and reconsider points.
I concur in the Court’s order denying appellant’s motions. I write separately to clarify my reasons for doing so.
Appellant’s original motion for rehearing was denied on March 4, 1998. She now attempts to file a second motion for rehearing from previously rejected points of error one and two. This is prohibited by our Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex.R.App. P. 79.5. Furthermore, there is no need to recall the mandate of affirmance in this ease because the recall of a mandate is appropriate only in the event that the court’s previous judgment is vacated or modified. See Tex. R.App. P. 18.7.
Finally, appellant requests that we allow her to supplement the appellate record with a portion of the court reporter’s record containing a seven page transcription of an in camera proceeding before the trial judge. Appellant argues that the trial judge’s statements during that proceeding show that he abused his discretion in compelling her attorney to deliver to the state certain maps previously drawn by appellant. These maps, which indicated the whereabouts of the child-victim’s body were drawn by appellant at the request of her court-appointed attorney in Kansas City. The trial judge stated that he believed the child was deceased and that there could be no ongoing crime. Appellant now urges that these statements undermine the reasoning of our decision affirming the trial court. However, appellant fails to recognize that regardless of the trial judge’s statements, his final ruling on the matter was correct. The trial judge’s personal beliefs were not relevant. On the contrary, we reasoned that
[a]t the time the trial court compelled the production of the maps, authorities had reason to believe that the baby was still alive ... Even if authorities believed that the chance of the maps leading to a live baby was remote, they were entitled to pursue that remote possibility.
Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544, 557 (Tex.Crim.App.) (emphases added and footnote omitted). That is, our decision was based on the beliefs of the law enforcement authorities, rather than the beliefs of the trial judge. Therefore, any evidence concerning the trial judge’s beliefs does nothing to undermine our decision. For these reasons, I concur in the denial of appellant’s motions.