Court Opinion

ID: 9641381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:30:12.688508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:37.012051
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY Chief Justice,
concurring.
*853The majority1 acknowledges in footnote 1 that then* discussion of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act is irrelevant dicta. Nevertheless, they include it anyway. Not only is the discussion under the headings “The Detainer was ‘Lodged’ Against Walker,” and “Walker Complied With the IADA [Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act]” dicta, but it is also wrong. It is wrong because there was no issue as to the sufficiency of Walker’s “proof.” Walker’s “proof’ was not an issue because a motion to obtain the benefits of the IADA was never filed by Walker. Since a motion was never filed, the issue was never joined between Walker and the State. Because the issue was never joined, there is no evidence upon which the trial court, or this Court, could properly make the required findings. In short, application of the IADA was never raised; accordingly, Walker forfeited the ability to complain about the failure to dismiss the indictment on that basis.
While there is not much Texas authority, there is a wealth of federal and other state authority which we can utilize. See State v. Sephus, 32 S.W.3d 369, 374-383 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. ref'd) (Gray, J., dissenting). Basically, the majority does not like what has been written and wants to create its own authority to use in the future. I have no doubt that the majority will.
This Court has historically had a problem in distinguishing that discussion which is necessary for a disposition of the appeal on the issues presented. Kelly v. State, 151 S.W.3d 683, 687 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, no pet.) (Gray, C.J., concurring). Frequently, its inclusion does not present a problem with the ultimate result and may help to satisfy a need for self-aggrandizement. (If the lead opinion can use “elucidating,” surely I am entitled to use “self-aggrandizement.”). With these comments, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

. Justice Reyna is the author of the lead opinion joined by Justice Vance's dissenting opinion.