Court Opinion

ID: 9665028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:36:57.973828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:12.315641
License: Public Domain

DISSENT TO ORDER
TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I am amused at the tone of the majority’s order. It takes an approach of: We could not possibly be wrong in the earlier opinion and we said “immediately release Abbott from jail” and we meant it. I would remind the majority, not only of what I would characterize as a poor record for being correct, but that the system of justice approved by the citizens provides that the Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) has the right and the obligation to review what this Court does.
Also, I note that I did not join the super accelerated request for a response to the motion to issue the mandate nor the issuance thereof. But again, I note the tone of the majority as it is critical of the State’s efforts to have the rules by which all litigants are expected to abide, used by the majority. The State is also being criticized for not providing better briefing or legal support. Given the arcane area of the law in which we are dealing, and the exceedingly short deadlines in which the State was asked to respond, I thought they did a pretty good job.
One item of note in the factual recitation in the Order is that when the deputy clerk of the CCA called, the deputy clerk was not told that the mandate had already issued. Nor was I told that the deputy clerk from the CCA had called to advise us the CCA was considering the motion.
So, I ask the question, was the mandate issued, or was it not? The majority thinks it was. If they are correct, I question whether the majority’s subsequent order setting bail at a mere $2,500 was valid (pretrial bail was set by the trial court at $200,000). Because the time they have allotted me to respond is about to expire, I will, however, be unable to fully research that question. Nor will I be able to answer the question of whether preparation but non-delivery is an actual issuance of a mandate. See Gonzales v. State, 904 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, pet. ref'd) (when mandate has issued, decision of Court of Appeals is final and must be enforced); Gainer v. State, 636 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1982, no pet.) (because petition for discretionary review was not filed in Court of Appeals, Court of Appeals’ judgment was final and mandate was issued); see also Cuellar v. State, 521 S.W.2d 277, 280 (Tex.Crim.App.1975) (cause is pending until mandate issues). This is just more of a mess than I have time or inclination to try to sort out. I was, after all, trying to take some time off to enjoy the Christmas season when I ultimately yielded to the threat *29to issue the order without stating my position, but yet showing me as participating, thus making it appear to the world as if I participated in it, thus making it a unanimous decision. It is not.
I do not think, based on what little research I have been able to complete, that the mandate was issued; therefore, there is nothing to recall. If it was issued, as the majority contends, what we must also acknowledge is that until it is recalled, we had no jurisdiction to do anything else in this proceeding, so the majority’s order setting bail is void. With these comments, I dissent to the order purportedly recalling the mandate that I do not believe was ever issued.