Court Opinion

ID: 9761546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:45:21.393804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:24.327119
License: Public Domain

BERCHELMANN, Judge,
concurring.
Although I agree with the ultimate conclusion reached by the majority’s opinion, I write this brief concurring opinion to express my concerns with the unnecessarily broad language employed therein. I do not agree that a trial court’s removal of a District Attorney’s Office on a particular case is tantamount to removing the District Attorney from his elected office. “Removing” a county official from office is a term of art, and this drastic action is limited to the three narrow situations involving a county official’s incompetence, official misconduct or intoxication. V.T.C.A., Local Gov’t.Code Sec. 87.018(a).
Removing a District Attorney’s Office from a particular case, however, is clearly distinct from an attempt to remove an official from his or her elected office. Because the majority’s opinion on motion for rehearing is premised on that fundamental misconception, I concur only in the result reached.
CLINTON, MILLER and STURNS, JJ., join this opinion.