Court Opinion

ID: 9394357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-14 08:12:20.316495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:59.105651
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Majority Opinion and Concurring Opinion filed
May 11, 2023.

                                        In The

                      Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                NO. 14-21-00632-CR

                        GIOVANNY RANCOCO, Appellant
                                           V.

                         THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                      On Appeal from the 179th District Court
                              Harris County, Texas
                          Trial Court Cause No. 1583707

                             CONCURRING OPINION

      Appellant questions the legitimacy of Brooks v. State and its progeny. Brooks,
323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Barring amendments to the Texas
Constitution to remove the factual-conclusivity clause in article V, section 6(a), to
remove Code of Criminal Procedure article 44.25, and to affirmatively negate
factual-sufficiency review, the legitimacy question is reasonable. Opinions like Stone v.
State and Clewis v. State seem both textually sound and fundamentally fair, especially
to those who work in both the criminal and civil arenas. Stone, 823 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.
App.—Austin, 1992, pet. ref’d, untimely filed); Clewis, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1996).
       Perhaps the court of criminal appeals will at some point reconsider Brooks.
Factual sufficiency is an appellate equitable principle that has been exercised as far back
as the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas. We must remember that the current
factual-conclusivity clause is a limitation on that power rather than its source.
       There is a role for appellate courts to exercise what reasonable people can read to
be the equitable power of the appellate court to unfind facts and grant a new trial to
prevent manifest injustice, regardless of the appellate standard of review over the
findings of fact and the minimum federal constitutional floor provided by the Fourteenth
Amendment. It is not disrespectful to question why this power (mostly) exists in civil
cases, yet (mostly) does not exist in criminal cases.
       Factfinders can make egregious mistakes in all areas of the law, and appellate
courts should not take false comfort in the belief that the system always works. The
existence of this power was placed in our constitution when the factual-conclusivity
clause was written by legislators and approved by citizens who understood that
miscarriages of justice unfortunately occur.
       The debate on this will not go away.
       But I am neither a judge on the court of criminal appeals, nor would I be
persuaded that the judgment of conviction in this case was factually insufficient were
this court permitted to make such a determination.

                                                2
      I respectfully concur in this court’s judgment.

                                        /s/    Charles A. Spain
                                               Justice

Panel consists of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson (Poissant, J., majority).

Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                              3