Court Opinion

ID: 9630481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:11:59.778704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:38.859259
License: Public Domain

BILL VANCE, Justice,
concurring.
I cannot join Chief Justice Gray’s concurring opinion on rehearing for several reasons. First and foremost, it is almost openly critical of the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005). It relies too heavily on a dissent in that case. It is internally inconsistent, stating in one section that Miller-El “did not alter the standard of review of Batson challenges on direct appeal” and in another, “[tjhere are at least two ways in which Miller-El may somewhat alter how Texas appellate courts evaluate Batson cases:.... ” It argues outside the record. And finally, it accused Densey’s counsel of misrepresenting the record.
The 49 page concurring opinion is offered as “an example of the type analysis that defense counsel should provide to assist the Court in evaluating a Batson issue on appeal,” yet the treatment of the issue *329in his original Memorandum Opinion occupied exactly 11 lines of text. Perhaps I was right in noting the “perfunctory manner” in which the issues were treated in that opinion. Densey v. State, No. 10-04-00049-CR, 2005 WL 1581116, at FN* (Tex.App.-Waco, July 6, 2005, no pet. h.) (Vance, J. concurring note).
I concur in overruling the motion for rehearing.