Court Opinion

ID: 9662515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:11:47.727736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:40.282199
License: Public Domain

DAVID B. GAULTNEY, Justice,
concurring.
I respectfully disagree that the error here in denying the motion for continuance was constitutional, so I also disagree with the standard for the harm analysis utilized in the lead opinion. But I agree a new punishment hearing is required under the specific circumstances in this case. And I agree with Chief Justice Walker that on remand the punishment remains subject to enhancement.
I believe Rule 44.2(b) governs the harm analysis to be conducted if a trial court errs in denying a continuance to respond to a pleading. See Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(b). *457The harm analysis determines whether substantial rights were affected: Was the defendant prejudicially surprised under the circumstances — thereby requiring a continuance? Because I conclude the error in this case affected substantial rights, I concur with the remand for a de novo punishment hearing.