Court Opinion

ID: 9396328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-21 16:09:24.178115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.133410
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                        OF TEXAS

                                     NO. PD-0251-22

                         CALLIE RENEE INMAN, Appellant

                                             v.

                                THE STATE OF TEXAS

        ON APPELLANT=S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
             FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
                        GALVESTON COUNTY

          KEEL, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which KELLER, P.J., YEARY, and
SLAUGHTER, JJ., joined.

                                DISSENTING OPINION

       We granted Appellant’s petition for discretionary review to decide whether the

Confrontation Clause applies in hearings on motions to adjudicate. The majority

dismisses it as improvidently granted, but that’s a mistake.

       Our decision to grant was judicious because the lower court decided the

confrontation issue on its merits, and there is a split among the courts of appeals on that
point. Inman v. State, No. 13-20-00349-CR, 2022 WL 709832, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi-Edinburg March 10, 2022) (mem op., not designated for publication)

(holding that the Confrontation Clause does not apply in adjudication hearings); compare

Mauro v. State, 235 S.W.3d 374, 375–76 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, pet. ref’d) (same),

Diaz v. State, 172 S.W.3d 668, 673 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, 2005, no pet.) (same), and

Smart v. State, 153 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, pet. ref’d) (same),

with Perez v. State, No. 13-14-00300-CR, 2015 WL 4234236, at *1 n. 2 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi-Edinburg July 9, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(holding that the Confrontation Clause applies in revocation hearings), and Hughes v.

State, 651 S.W.3d 461, 470 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 15, 2022, pet.

granted) (same).

       Our purpose in granting review was to resolve the split among the courts of

appeals. Rather than abandon that purpose, we should address the merits of the issue

and resolve the split among the courts of appeals. Since the majority does otherwise, I

respectfully dissent.

Filed: May 17, 2023

Do Not Publish