Court Opinion

ID: 9858018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:11:56.992253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:24.730129
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
The issue here arises under an amendment to the Constitution of Texas; it should be decided on the basis of State law and within applicable State statutes. See State v. Eaves, 800 S.W.2d 220 (Tex.Cr.App.1990).
Merely because a bill analysis alludes to a federal statute permitting appeals by the government does not mean the Legislature “intended to extend the same appellate powers akin to those that the United States Congress had extended to the federal Government in a criminal ease.” At 329. To adopt wholesale a body of federal law without determining whether it is consistent with our own appellate rules and practice abdicates responsibilities of this Court to construe the law of this State.
Our cases, e.g., State v. Eaves, supra, State v. Eaves, 786 S.W.2d 396 (Tex.App—Amarillo 1990), and State v. Hancox, 762 S.W.2d 312 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1988) PDR refused, as well as the opinion below, also reviewed similar orders rendered by a trial court to determine whether it “effectively terminated the prosecution and was therefore appealable by the State.” However, that determination was made by construing our own statutory scheme rather than decisions under the federal statute. None has suggested that a trial court “effectively terminates” a prosecution “whenever the effect of its order forces any alteration of the indictment or information before the trial on the merits and the State is not willing to comply with that order," and indicates its recalcitrance by giving notice of appeal. At 334. Indeed, that federal courts have so applied their statute is most doubtful: the majority cites no authority and this dissenter is not obliged to ascertain whether there is any extant.