Court Opinion

ID: 9649163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:43:45.268269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:08.405714
License: Public Domain

MEYERS, Judge,
concurring.
I join in affirming the court of appeals, but disagree with the manner in which the majority resolves this case.
Appellant presents three grounds for review. Appellant’s first two grounds for review pertain to the applicability of Article 38.37 to this case. In his third ground for review, Appellant asks us to determine whether he effectively provided the State with a request for notice under Rule of Evidence 404(b), triggering the State’s responsibility to give notice of its intent to present extraneous offense evidence. The document Appellant filed was a motion addressed to the trial court and not a self-executing request for notice under Rule 404(b). Appellant failed to preserve this issue for review. Espinosa v. State, 853 S.W.2d 36 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). The court of appeals’ decision is correct and should be affirmed. Simpson v. State, No. 05-95-01616-CR slip. op., 1997 WL 242811 (Tex.App. — Dallas May 13, 1997) (not designated for publication).
The resolution of the third ground for review is dispositive, regardless of whether Article 38.37 applied.
*802Article 38.37 provides that “on timely request by the defendant, the state shall give notice of the state’s intent to introduce [extraneous offense evidence] in the same manner as the state is required to give notice under rule 404(b)[.]” Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.37 § 3 (Vernon Supp.1996). Because Appellant’s request for notice is ineffective under Rule 404(b), it is also ineffective under Article 38.37. If, on the other hand, Article 38.37 did not apply to Appellant’s trial, the extraneous offense evidence would still have been admissible under Rule 404(b), and Appellant does not contend otherwise. As such, it makes no difference whether Article 38.37 should have been applied in this case.
Since the resolution of Appellant’s third ground for review is controlling, the portion of the majority opinion addressing the applicability of Article 38.37 is unnecessary. The majority’s explanation that the effective dates of “evidentiary” statutes are somehow different from the effective dates for other types of statutes is not supported by authority. This notion seems to materialized out of thin air.
The court of appeals’ decision is correct. This Court should have disposed of this petition for discretionary review based on the third ground for review and dismissed the first two grounds as improvidently granted.
BAIRD and PRICE, JJ., join.