Court Opinion

ID: 9775717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:08:06.768323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:30.436485
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result, i.e., allowing an ordinary appeal. I question the manner by which the majority reaches its ultimate disposition. The majority “denies the writ of habeas corpus” when they are, in effect, affirming the lower court’s denial. They must be affirming the lower court because they have overruled all the points of error. The majority is willing, however, to now consider the matter as an ordinary appeal, if appellant so wishes. I assume the majority means this court will allow the transcript to be filed and consider points of error concerning the underlying conviction. If my assumption is correct, this is no more than this court granting an out-of-time appeal. I do not believe TEX.R.APP.P. 44 is *248authority for this court to affirm the denial of a writ of habeas corpus and simultaneously allow an appeal.
Appellant, in the application below, alleged the transcript was not timely filed because the county clerk’s office led him to believe it had. been filed. Appellant produced evidence of this at the hearing below. The state did not controvert this in any manner. The majority should have sustained appellant’s point of error alleging abuse of discretion by the trial court in not granting the out-of-time appeal.1 By doing so, the majority would accomplish the same end, but would not reach the other points of error, including the constitutional questions, until the appeal on the merits. For the reasons previously stated, I concur in the result.

. I take no position on the other points of error, because to do otherwise would be to issue advisory opinions at this stage of the proceedings.