Court Opinion

ID: 9604777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:26:40.408423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:23.910867
License: Public Domain

RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority in that this Court is duty-bound to follow established caselaw, as formulated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. I would join in reluctantly denying mandamus relief for that reason alone.
I, nonetheless, must take the extraordinary step of echoing Justice Larsen’s position that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals should revisit Woodard v. The Eighth Court of Appeals, 991 S.W.2d 795 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). I would strongly concur in Justice Larsen’s statement that forcing a criminal defendant to trial before appellate relief can be obtained on a trial court’s failure to perform • an otherwise ministerial duty is unfair, totally inefficient, and a waste of judicial resources, especially in light of the draconian budget cuts that the Texas judicial system was forced to undergo. Moreover, forcing a trial under such circumstances, when a matter can easily be resolved through mandamus, places an undue burden on the prosecution to reassemble witnesses for a re-trial years later, an undue burden on local government who bear the cost of assembling juries and associated costs of trial, and more important, on the often neglected victim of crime who may be needlessly re-victimized all because a trial judge refused to perform a ministerial act. I would respectfully request that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals revisit Woodard.
LARSEN, Justice, filed a dissenting opinion.