Court Opinion

ID: 9857495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:47:01.051129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:15.945520
License: Public Domain

REAVLEY, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the opinion of the Court, but I foresee potential problems with Rule 21c. It should be the policy of the courts ruling upon Rule 21c motions to require the record or application, etc. to be filed with the 21c motion — or as soon thereafter as is possible, viewing the possibility from the date of filing of the 21c motion.
It is one thing to let the deadline go by through miscalculation or other justifiable excuse; it is another thing for the movant to seek a new deadline thereafter to accommodate his busy schedule. If Rule 21c is used as a motion for continuance and as a device to add weeks to the appellate process, which is already much too protracted, then we may be forced to return to the harshness of Matlock v. Matlock, 151 Tex. 308, 249 S.W.2d 587 (1952).
GREENHILL, C. J., joins in this concurring opinion.