Court Opinion

ID: 9858759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:37:28.231567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:47.145201
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
The opinion of this Court in Houlihan v. State, 579 S.W.2d 213 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) pointedly stated:
“So, here, the forum to petition for redress for relief from untoward consequences of clear meaning of unambiguous *495statutory language is the Legislature that enacted it.”
Houlihan v. State, supra, at 220. That opinion was delivered March 28, 1979— while the Legislature was in session.
While we do not know that the Houlihan opinion received much attention, at least one application of its holdings generated public outcry that prompted demands for legislative action. Responding to expressed concerns the Legislature extensively revised Section 3e of Article 42.12, Y.A.C.C.P. However, significantly the revision retained intact “jurisdictional” provisions construed in Houlihan.
Thus, given ample opportunity to grant “relief from untoward consequences of clear meaning of unambiguous statutory language,” the Legislature demurred. Now it would be most unbecoming for this Court to do that which the Legislative Department has declined, for we are constitutionally admonished against “exercisjjng] any power properly attached to either” of the other departments of Government. Article II, Constitution of the State of Texas. Providing procedural framework for punishment for crime is in the domain of the Legislature.
Accordingly, I concur in opinion and judgment of the Court.