Court Opinion

ID: 9662769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:17:40.803466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:42.209960
License: Public Domain

MANSFIELD, Judge,
Joining Note:
I join the majority opinion. I write only to deplore the implication in Judge Baird’s dissenting opinion that our disposition of this case has changed solely because the membership of the Court has changed. I read both the original majority opinion as well as Judge Clinton’s dissent and believe strongly that Judge Clinton’s analysis of the applicable law is correct. The implication that my decision in this case was based on anything other than my legal analysis of the issues presented in this matter is not appreciated. Expressed or implied attacks on the motives or integrity of members of this Court by other members have no place in our written opinions. The purpose for allowing the State and/or the appellant to file a Motion for Rehearing After Written Opinion is to permit the Court to reexamine its original disposition of the case and, infrequently, as in the present case, we do change our disposition. As our disposition of a case is not final until the time for fifing a Motion For Rehearing After Written Opinion has expired, stare decisis is not implicated when we grant a Motion for Rehearing After Written Opinion and subsequently depart from our original disposition.