Court Opinion

ID: 9662782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:18:06.010837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:42.469903
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, J.,
concurs in the result.
MANSFIELD, J., joins with the following note: I join the judgment of the Court. I write solely to express my concern that appellant comes dangerously close to an abuse of our appellate system. By raising 140 points of error — many of wMch appear dupli-cative and multifarious — in 531 pages and four briefs, it appears that appellant may have concluded there is a relationship between length of an appeal and quality of same. While no one advocates a rush to justice, especially in capital cases, dilatory tactics of delay do not serve justice either and also result in waste of valuable time and scarce resources. It may be time for the Court to consider imposing a limit as to the number of points of error and the length of briefs that may be submitted on appeal of a capital ease, perhaps modeled after Rule 74(h), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (currently applicable to civil appeals).
KELLER, J., not participating.