Court Opinion

ID: 9777306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:06:56.498394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:52.169722
License: Public Domain

ODOM, Judge, concurring.
I concur in the disposition of this case, and write only to clarify my understanding of Ex parte Fowler, 573 S.W.2d 241, which, in my opinion, need not. be overruled.
In Fowler, after discussing the appellate procedure of Art. 44.04(g), V.A.C.C.P., the Court wrote:
“Since notice of appeal was not given, we do not have jurisdiction to review the matter, and we shall no longer review such matters by habeas corpus since a specific right of appeal is provided.”
I understand this statement to be a declaration (1) that with no notice of appeal this Court was without appellate jurisdiction over Fowler’s case, and (2) as a policy decision this Court would henceforth decline to exercise its discretionary original habeas corpus jurisdiction in this class of cases, because review by appeal is available. The adoption of such a policy does not foreclose an occasional exercise of discretionary original habeas corpus jurisdiction in cases presenting unusual circumstances. Invocation of such original jurisdiction should be in accordance with the rules of this Court. See Art. 44.33, V.A.C.C.P., Rule 7.
Here, due to unusual circumstances which need not be gone into, the habeas corpus application was ordered filed and set under the rules of the Court. To “switch horses” at this stage of the proceedings, and dismiss the case as an appeal without notice of appeal, when to this day it has not been treated by this Court nor by the parties as an appeal would not serve justice.
*512It is not necessary to overrule Fowler, supra, because that case does not say the legislature attempted to oust the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by creation of a right to appeal. I concur in the discretionary exercise of our original habeas corpus jurisdiction in this case, while I urge adherence to a general policy of declining such review in favor of requiring litigants to pursue the statutory appeal process if review is desired.
ROBERTS and W. C. DAVIS, JJ., join this concurrence.