Court Opinion

ID: 9660613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:16:51.915672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:20.917910
License: Public Domain

BERCHELMANN, Judge,
dissentmg.
The majority opinion clearly follows from the holding and rationale of Ex parte Renter, 734 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.1987) (opinion on rehearing). However, because I believe that Renter, supra, was incorrectly decided, I respectfully dissent.
Under Renter, supra, this Court decided not to treat a probationer’s felony conviction as “final” for purposes of habeas review thereby depriving this Court of jurisdiction to hear a probationer’s habeas challenge. This interpretation results in granting jurisdiction in the district court to decide a probationer’s writ of habeas corpus. It is the application of the Renter rationale which inevitably leads to problems as exemplified in the case at bar and as a consequence turns the system of review upon its head.
I believe a more tenable approach is set forth in Judge Teague's well-written dissent to Renter, 734 S.W.2d at 354, wherein ample authority is given to interpret a felony probationer’s conviction as “final” for purpose of habeas review, thus lodging jurisdiction in this Court for such cases. Accordingly, I would overrule Renter, supra, to put an end to the havoc it will continue to create. I therefore respectfully dissent.