Court Opinion

ID: 9772092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:07:09.414104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:42.030462
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Judge,
dissenting.
I must object to the refusal of the majority to adequately address all the grounds of error raised on appeal.
Article 44.24(c), V.A.C.C.P. provides:
The Court of Criminal Appeals, in each case decided by it, shall deliver a written opinion, setting forth in intelligible language the reason for such decision; or where precedent exists, in its discretion may decide the same by a certificate of affirmance or reversal with citation of supporting authorities. In either event, any judge may file an opinion dissenting from or concurring in the action of the court, (emphasis added)
The language of this provision allows certification as the only alternative to a full written opinion.
The only substantial precedent for the delivery of an abbreviated opinion is Fox v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 71, 165 S.W.2d 733 (1942), decided under Article 847 of the former code of criminal procedure.1
This Court stated in Fox, at 734:
In his motion for rehearing appellant complains, with much emphasis, because the court did not consider, pass upon and adjudicate each assignment presented, “and to give their reasons for such holding in a written opinion”. Appellant has a right to have this court consider every question raised by him and such was done in the original opinion and, likewise, each and every question is reconsidered on the motion, but it is not mandatory, practical or advisable to discuss in written opinions each and every question raised in all cases, especially when they have heretofore been definitely decided in the opinions of the court.
The legislature certainly was aware of Fox when it enacted Article 44.24(c), supra, as it provided that an abbreviated opinion may be written only “where precedent exists.” Fox suggested that discussion of a ground of error was not necessary where *233the question raised had been “definitely decided” by prior cases.
In enacting Article 44.24(c), the legislature in its wisdom imposed specific restrictions on decisions by certificate: (1) controlling precedent for disposing of each ground of error must exist; (2) the supporting authority must be cited, whether the certified decision is an affirmance or reversal; and, (3) each member of the court must examine the briefs of the parties. Concerning the last requirement, see Article 44.24(d), V.A. C.C.P.
The majority in this case has complied with none of these restrictions. It has wholly failed to give adequate treatment to four of appellant’s five grounds of error. I dissent to the refusal of the majority to carry out its statutory duty.

. Article 847 stated in pertinent part:
In each case by it decided, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall deliver a written opinion, setting forth the reason for such decision.