Court Opinion

ID: 9640835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:16:34.877793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:52.293944
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
Being constrained to join the judgment of the Court does not preclude me from observing that the very fact of this prolonged litigation demonstrates once again the folly in ever bestowing upon courts of appeals jurisdiction, power and authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters. Dickens v. Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Cr.App.1987) (Clinton, J., dissenting at 553 ff.).
*244According to our record, pursuant to a plea bargain the original judgment was made November 27, 1984; the order revoking probation was signed June 26, 1986; on July 8, 1987, the court of appeals vacated punishment part of the latter and reinstated the former, after reforming it by deleting the initial grant of probation; a nunc pro tunc judgment including for the first time a purported “affirmative” deadly weapon finding was entered October 22, 1987.
The record does not reveal the present status of the real party in interest, Cecilio Reyna, now more than six years since submitting his plea bargain to the trial court.