Court Opinion

ID: 9777199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:02:03.883181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:49.732349
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
The opinion of the Court does not purport to be the last word on right to counsel and validity of the statute. The two conclusions reached by the Court are narrowly confined: the first to right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and the second to a finding that the statute does not create an “irrebuttable presumption.” Left open for determination by the Port Worth Court of Appeals in the first instance is the question of right to counsel under our own Constitution and laws of Texas, and not foreclosed in the future are other challenges to validity of the statute.
As presently construed by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at or after “initiation of adversary proceedings” against an accused. In context of an accused being confronted with Miranda and a “request” by a peace officer that he submit to a breath test, and facing dire consequences should he refuse, the right to counsel at that stage seems to be an open question under Texas law. Today the Court quite properly defers to the Fort Worth Court of Appeals for an initial answer to that question.
Similarly, the Court leaves open for another day whether the statute is invalid for different reasons than the one advanced in this cause.
Given those considerations, I join the opinion of the Court.