Court Opinion

ID: 9659931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:58:50.817138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:13.106559
License: Public Domain

KELLER, Judge,
dissenting.
This ease should be affirmed.
Appellant argued to the Court of Appeals that the failure to comply with Article 1.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is not *220subject to harmless error analysis. Even though the court did not cite to our opinion in Cain, it held, correctly, that the error is subject to harmless error analysis. Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). The court then applied the proper harm analysis under Rule 44.2(b), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
In Cain, we held that, “[ejxcept for certain federal constitutional errors labeled by the United States Supreme Court as ‘structural,’ no error, whether it relates to jurisdiction, voluntariness of a plea, or any other mandatory requirement, is categorically immune to a harmless error analysis.” Id. at 264. The error in the case before us involves noncompliance with a statute. As such, a harmless error analysis should be implemented. The Court of Appeals has already conducted a harm analysis, and appellant does not complain of the manner of the analysis.
In Cain we also stated, “[t]o the extent that Marin [v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Crim.App.1993)], Morales [v. State, 872 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)], Whitten [v. State, 587 S.W.2d 156 (Tex.Crim.App.1979)7 and any other decision conflicts with the present opinion, they are overruled.” Id. Meek is in direct conflict with Cain, and was thus overruled by Cain. Meek v. State, 851 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).
Cain’s language was deliberately broad. Harm analysis is proper for all errors except those that the United States Supreme Court has explicitly stated are immune from it. As long as a court of appeal’s analysis is correct, we should not remand a case just because it fails to cite Cain. We do a disservice to the courts of appeals when we burden them with useless tasks, and that is what the majority does here. When the Court of Appeals gets the case back it will hold (again) that, yes, statutory error is subject to a harm analysis and it will hold (again) that, yes, this error was harmless.
I respectfully dissent.
McCORMICK, P.J., and WOMACK, J., join.