Court Opinion

ID: 9718528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:26:38.77652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:00.146878
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

KEASLER, J.,
dissenting in which KELLER, P.J., and HERVEY, J., joined.
I cannot agree that granting rehearing is “of no consequence” under the circumstances here. On original submission, I dissented on the very basis on which the State seeks rehearing. I asserted then that the court of appeals erred in addressing Wilson’s claim under Penal Code Section 37.09 because it was not preserved at trial. My opinion on the issue remains the same: the State’s failure to call the court of appeals’s attention to this deficiency does not change the fact that the alleged error under Section 37.09 was not properly preserved, and the court of appeals was obligated to address preservation in the first instance.1 I would therefore grant *475the State’s first ground for rehearing and remand the case to the court of appeals to consider Wilson’s remaining points of error.

. See Jones v. State, 942 S.W.2d 1, 2 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.I997) ("Preservation of error is a systemic requirement that a first-level *475appellate court should ordinarily review on its own motion.”).