Court Opinion

ID: 9818412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:44:10.226625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:24.185594
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
BRIAN QUINN, Chief Justice.
Pending before the court is a motion for rehearing. Appellant contends that she discovered another “arguable issue” pertaining to an assessment of a sheriffs fee. Therefore, additional briefing is warranted. We deny the motion.
Appellant’s initial counsel filed an “An-der’s Brief,” contending that there were no “arguable issues” worthy of briefing. He also sought leave to withdraw. Per our duty under In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.Crim.App.2008), we perused the record, discovered an “arguable issue,” denied the motion to withdraw, and directed counsel to brief it and any other issue that he may encounter. Appellant’s counsel complied with the directive. Moreover, the State filed its responsive brief, and the matter was submitted via oral argument. This court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgment. We mention this to il-*613lústrate that while the proceeding may have begun as an “Anders” matter, it evolved into a normal appeal. Yet, appellant’s motion for rehearing tends to treat the matter as an “Anders” situation, which it is not.
So, because new issues cannot be raised through a motion for rehearing, Rogers v. Ardella Veigel Inter Vivos Trust No. 2, 162 S.W.3d 281, 291 (Tex.App.Amarillo 2005, pet. denied) (opinion on rehearing), we deny the motion.
PIRTLE, J., concurring and dissenting.