Court Opinion

ID: 9773242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:40:31.997737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:51.238478
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
The majority reverses appellant’s conviction based on his contention that “[t]he Court of Appeals has decided a question of law in conflict with the applicable decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals requiring the limitation of evidence to the purpose for which the testimony was admitted.” We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review on this and two other grounds as noted in footnote 1 of the majority opinion. Because the Court of Appeals did not address the ground for review upon which the majority now reversed, I dissent.
In the Court of Appeals, appellant raised the point of error that “[t]he trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence of an extraneous offense concerning an altercation between the Appellant and Bryan Parsons.” Addressing this point, the Court of Appeals held:
“The general rule is that an accused may not be tried for some collateral crime or for being a criminal generally. Rubio v. State, 607 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). It is well recognized, however, that this rule must in some instances give way, as where the prosecution shows that the extraneous transaction is relevant to a material issue in the case and where its probative value outweighs its prejudicial potential. Elkins v. State, 647 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). The extraneous transactions in this case were relevant to the witness’s credibility and his ability to explain a prior inconsistent statement originally elicited by Abdnor’s defense counsel. Simply, evidence that a witness has been threatened is admissible to explain prior inconsistent statements by the witness. Williams v. State, 604 S.W.2d 146, 150 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). We overrule Abdnor’s sixth point of error.”
*480Abdnor v. State, 756 S.W.2d 815, 822 (Tex.App.1988).
Neither in addressing this point of error nor anywhere else in the Court of Appeals’ opinion is the issue of the necessity for an instruction touched upon. Such issue appears in the record below only in a tangential argument in appellant’s brief pursuant to point of error six as set forth above. With the advent of discretionary review practice in this Court, there was much discussion relative to our role in reviewing decisions of the Courts of Appeals. Early on, Judge Clinton noted:
“The Rules of Post Trial and Appellate Procedure in Criminal Cases governing petitions for discretionary review in this Court do not authorize review of claims which have not been presented in an orderly fashion and determined by the appropriate court of appeals.” Labrecht v. State, 681 S.W.2d 614 (Tex.Cr.App.1984).
See also Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) at footnote 9; Humason v. State, 728 S.W.2d 363 (Tex.Cr.App.1987) at footnote 4; and Tallant v. State, 742 S.W.2d 292 (Tex.Cr.App.1987).
The adoption of this view was not without objection. On numerous occasions, former Presiding Judge Onion chastised the majority for failing to address issues before this Court even though not addressed by the lower court, and for remanding cases to the Courts of Appeals to perform some function this Court was capable of performing. See Orn v. State, 753 S.W.2d 394 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (Onion, P.J., dissenting: “I vigorously dissent to the failure of the majority to dispose of this cause now”). It was in such a dissent that Judge Onion coined the now popular phrase of “appellate orbit”:
“I dissent to the remand to the Court of Appeals. The case has already been reversed on other grounds. I would decide the exigent circumstances question here. We needlessly keep too many cases in appellate orbit.” Adkins v. State, 717 S.W.2d 363 (Tex.Cr.App.1986, Onion, P.J. dissenting). See also Black v. State, 723 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Cr.App.1986, Onion, P.J. dissenting).
Despite these protests, this Court has established the policy of not addressing issues unless the opinion of the Court of Appeals has done so. As Judge Campbell explained so clearly in Angel v. State, 740 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Cr.App.1987):
“Our state constitution limits this Court’s discretionary appellate power to review of ‘a decision of a Court of Appeals in a criminal case as provided by law.’ Tex. Const, art. V, § 5; see also Tex.R.App.Proc. 202(a). Our own rules of procedure further limit our review to those particular grounds raised in the petition and granted by this Court. Tex. R.App.Proc. 202(d)(4); see McCambridge v. State, 712 S.W.2d 499, 500 n. 2 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) (discretionary review strictly limited to ground raised and granted in petition); Eisenhauer v. State, 678 S.W.2d 947, 956 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (Clinton, J., dissenting) (‘Our grant of review was no broader than the ground presented.... ’). By doing so, we narrow our appellate focus to a particular issue, thus avoiding wholesale review of an entire case. See, e.g., McCambridge, supra, at 501 n. 6 (issue on voluntariness of consent not granted for review). Given these constitutional and procedural restrictions upon our review power, ‘our [discretionary] review is limited to those points of error decided by the courts of appeals, included in petitions for discretionary review and granted as grounds for review.’ Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348, 353 n. 9 (Tex.Cr.App.1986)”
We should not now change the rules. The majority’s addressing the issue and reversing appellant’s conviction is against the policies we have imposed upon ourselves.
Appellant’s petition on this ground for review should be improvidently granted since it is now clear there is no decision of the Court of Appeals for us to review.
I respectfully dissent.