Court Opinion

ID: 9783649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:54:29.475871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:28.613727
License: Public Domain

KEASLER, J.,
filed a concurring opinion
in which HEEVEY and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.
I agree with the Court’s determination to remand. But I write separately to express my opinion about Texas’s due course of law provision. To date, this Court has not rendered an opinion on the scope of the substantive rights and protections afforded by the due course of law provision. However, this Court and the Texas Supreme Court have interpreted the due course of law provision to provide the same procedural rights and protections as the Due Process Clause.1 Therefore, cases from the Supreme Court of the United States have guided Texas issues involving procedural due course of law.2 Given this longstanding precedent, I see no reason to reach a contrary conclusion with respect to substantive rights and protections.
Notably, former Chief Justice Phillips of the Texas Supreme Court discussed substantive due process under the Texas Constitution in his dissenting opinion in Lucas v. United States.3 He observed that most Texas decisions addressing substantive due process have relied on federal authorities or have regarded Texas’s due course *417of law provision to be the same as its federal analog.4 Only a minority of cases have suggested that the due course of law provision “has any independent meaning.” 5 Thus, “it is not firmly established in Texas jurisprudence.”6 With the Texas Supreme Court’s precedent on substantive due process firmly established, it would make no sense to reach an decision that conflicts with our sister court.
I also agree with former Presiding Judge McCormick’s dissent in State v. Ibarra: “the federalization of this State’s criminal law and the vast expansion of federal power into areas that traditionally had been reserved solely to the states preempt any ‘independent’ state constitutional analysis.”7 The practical implications of this approach noted by Presiding Judge McCormick are highly persuasive. Law enforcement and defendants would be aware of the applicability and scope of the protections and rights, and appellate courts would not have to grapple with different burdens and frameworks.8
With these comments, I join the Court’s opinion.

. Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529, 536-37 (Tex. Crim.App.1987), superceded by statute; Thompson v. State, 626 S.W.2d 750, 753 (Tex. Crim.App. 1981); see Ex parte Quintanilla, 151 Tex.Crim. 328, 207 S.W.2d 377, 378-79 (1947); see generally Huntsman v. State, 12 Tex.App. 619, 625-50 (1882); University of Texas Medical School v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926, 929 (Tex.1995) (citing Mellinger v. City of Houston, 68 Tex. 37, 3 S.W. 249, 252-53 (1887)); see also National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Yeo, 171 S.W.3d 863, 867-68 (Tex.2005).

. Rose, 752 S.W.2d at 536-37; Huntsman, 12 Tex.App. at 634; Than, 901 S.W.2d at 929.

. 757 S.W.2d 687, 712-13 (Tex.1988) (Phillips, C.J., dissenting).

. Id. at 712.

. Id. at 713.

. Id. at 714.

. 953 S.W.2d 242, 249 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (McCormick, P.J., dissenting).

. Id. at 250.