Court Opinion

ID: 9674300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:26:16.963521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:26.810687
License: Public Domain

*294CONCURRING OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
GREENHILL, Justice
(concurring).
It developed that there were before the 14th Court of Civil Appeals at Houston two problems: (1) whether Johnny Hernandez and his family were in fact paupers, and (2) even if they were not, whether Johnny Hernandez was nevertheless entitled to a free transcript and statement of facts. That court passed only upon the second question and held, in effect, that even if Hernandez were a millionaire, he was, because he was a minor, entitled to appeal without payment of costs or posting bond.
The case is before us by mandamus and not appeal; and the first question (whether Hernandez was in fact a pauper) was not brought to us. We are, therefore, without power to rule on it. We are, in a way, operating in a vacuum.
I think it is quite unfortunate that the 14th Court of Civil Appeals did not pass upon, or has not passed upon, the question of the ability of Johnny Hernandez and his family to pay costs. That problem really goes to the heart of the matter. From the oral argument, it was developed that there is a very serious question as to the poverty of Hernandez and his family.
I agree with the observation in the dissent in this case that most minors are without funds to pay the costs of an appeal. But the facts as to poverty or not were controverted in this case; and as stated, the record to sustain or reverse the action of the trial court in overruling the pauper’s oath is not before us.
I concur with the result reached by the court: that all minors are not entitled to appeal juvenile proceedings just because they are minors and irrespective of their own or their family’s ability to pay costs.
McGEE, J., joins in this opinion.