Court Opinion

ID: 9779182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:39:27.593412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:23.033933
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON COURT’S OWN MOTION FOR REHEARING ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
ONION, Presiding Judge.
In appellant’s petition for discretionary review it is noted that appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to comply with the Speedy Trial Act, Article 32A.02, V.A.C.C.P., was overruled by the trial court. Complaint of this ruling was a point of error on appeal. It was rejected by the Court of Appeals. Taylor v. State (Tex.App.-Dallas 1985—No. 05-83-00431-CR). The Court of Appeals held the appellant failed “to develop a record substantiating his claim” and was precluded from complaining of a violation of the act.
We granted appellant’s sole ground for review to determine validity of the theory applied by the Court of Appeals to find that appellant failed to make an adequate record to preserve for review his motion to dismiss the indictment under the Act.
The majority of this Court found that the “real problem in this cause is lack of a record sufficient to inform any appellate court of just what transpired during the pretrial hearing that led the judge of the trial court to execute an order denying appellant’s motion.” Relying upon the language in Barfield v. State, 586 S.W.2d 538, 542 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), the majority held that the purpose and effect of a motion to dismiss for lack of compliance with the Speedy Trial Act was “to tender the issue, not to establish it.” It concluded that in “fairness to both parties” a Barfield hearing should be held in the trial court for a just resolution of the issues. The majority reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the cause to that court with directions to abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the majority opinion.
While the State’s motion for rehearing was pending a majority of this Court has declared the Speedy Trial Act unconstitutional. Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). Thus, we are faced with a matter of mootness. We granted rehearing on the court’s own motion.
For the reasons set forth in our opinion in Chacon v. State, 745 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), this day decided, the appellant’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed for mootness.