Court Opinion

ID: 9858249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:19:16.448339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:41.001669
License: Public Domain

OVERSTREET, Judge,
dissenting on denial of applicant’s motion for rehearing.
On June 7, 1995, this Court found each of applicant’s contentions to be without merit and accordingly denied all relief. Ground one of applicant’s motion for rehearing seeks rehearing on the issue of whether he was medicated against his will at trial in violation of his constitutional rights.
In our original opinion we concluded that the record “clearly demonstrates that applicant failed to make a motion to terminate use *27of the medication or that he even lodged an objection to being medicated” and that “applicant fails to show anywhere in the record that he was forced to take the medication or that there was even an objection to his being medicated at trial.” Ex parte Thomas, 906 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Tex.Cr.App.1995). However, ground one of applicant’s motion for rehearing avers that the trial court has found that he objected to the medication, that the State repeatedly conceded that he objected to the medication (in its answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus, in its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, in its brief to this Court, and in its oral argument before this Court), and that his trial attorneys have testified post-trial that they objected at trial. He insists that while his objection to the medication does not appear in the trial record, “[such] absence does not alter the fact— a fact found by the trial court, conceded by the State and sworn to by two Texas attorneys — that [applicant] objected to his medication at trial.” (Applicant’s motion for rehearing, p. 8)
Tex.R.App.Pro. 74(f) states, “Any statement made by appellant in his original brief as to the facts or the record may be accepted by the court as correct unless challenged by the opposing party.” I believe that we should grant rehearing on ground number one to reevaluate whether or not applicant preserved his complaint about being forcibly medicated at trial. It would appear to be somewhat incongruous to hold that there was no trial objection if everyone involved agrees that there was an objection at trial. Rehearing should be granted to determine whether the complaint was or was not preserved at trial, and if it was to address the merits of the claim.
Accordingly I respectfully dissent to denying ground one of applicant’s motion for rehearing.