Court Opinion

ID: 9622535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:19:29.463238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:27:25.913132
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Justice,
dissenting.
Keeter wants out of prison on bail pending the final determination of his appeal. After the original opinion,1 in response to Keeter’s request, this Court set the amount of bail. That opinion on the merits was withdrawn and was replaced by a new one. Before the opinion was withdrawn, Keeter filed a motion in the trial court requesting that he be bench warranted back to the county of conviction. His specific purpose for wanting to be bench warranted is unknown, though we have all assumed it was so he could attend to the process necessary to be released by posting bond in the required amount and satisfaction of the other conditions set by the trial court including approval of the sureties. The trial court has not ruled on the motion for a bench warrant.
I will not delay the result in this proceeding with a long and lengthy analysis of all the problems with the majority opinion. I will discuss some of them only briefly, relying in large part on the authority the majority tries to distinguish in its opinion.
In short, Keeter has asked for assistance from this court so that he can pursue bail pending appeal. The foundation of his request is an opinion that has been withdrawn. It seems to me that makes his existing request moot. The majority issued a new opinion and judgment. Keeter needs to make a new request based on the current opinion of the majority. How could making a ruling on a motion which is based upon an opinion and judgment that no longer exist be a mandatory task?
Further, a substantial question exists, since Keeter did not make a request to this Court to set bail based upon the current opinion of the majority of this Court prior to the State having filed a petition for discretionary review of that opinion, whether Keeter’s request to have bail pending appeal should be made to this Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex.Code CRiM. PROC. Ann. art. 44.04(h) (Vernon Pamp.2003).
Even further, the majority engages in a lengthy analysis of why Keeter is entitled to a bench warrant. The majority discusses why Keeter must be returned to the county and trial court and what Keeter must be allowed to do while there. Basi*258cally they hold that he can only sign documents in person if present in the court room. The majority assumes Keeter will meet the amount of his bail obligation with a bond and then engages in extensive dicta as to why it is necessary that the bond be personally signed in Hamilton County where he was convicted rather than the county where he is incarcerated. Multimillion dollar deals are routinely conducted with original signatures obtained through the mail. And the signature of Keeter on the bond is not the last event necessary before release as apparently assumed by the majority. At the very least, the sureties on his bond must be approved. See Tex.Code CRiM. PROC. Ann. art. 44.04 (Vernon Pamp.2003). Surely all the paper work necessary to get Keeter in a position to be released on bail, if he can meet the conditions necessary for release, and it may be no small task to find satisfactory sureties for his bond, could be completed by mail. And when it appears that all the paper work is complete, then he could be bench warranted back to Hamilton County for immediate release on bail pending appeal.
Thus, even if the bail we set in connection with the first opinion is applicable to our second opinion, notwithstanding he has made no request for bail based upon our second opinion, and even if the request for bail would therefore be properly addressed to this Court, there is no need to bench warrant him back to Hamilton County until it is apparent that he has met all the conditions necessary for release. Until such time as he has established that he has otherwise met the conditions necessary to be released on bail, his presence in Hamilton County is not required. Thus, a ruling on the motion is unnecessary at this time and certainly does not warrant the issuance of a mandamus in this circumstance. For the reasons expressed, I respectfully dissent.

. The majority’s first opinion was actually reversed on the State’s petition for discretionary review. The opinion referenced was actually the original majority opinion on remand.