Court Opinion

ID: 9370309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 00:12:12.752113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.007701
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                     OF TEXAS
                                 NO. WR-94,538-01

      In re STATE OF TEXAS ex. rel. RANDALL SIMS, Relator

                     ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
                  A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                         IN CAUSE NO. 39532-D
                IN THE 320TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
                            POTTER COUNTY

     Newell, J. filed a dissenting opinion.

     I wrote a concurring statement to a show cause order in In re State

ex rel. Risinger.1      The Court issued the show cause order in that case

because the attorneys representing Raphael Deon Holiday filed an

untimely motion to withdraw the warrant of execution in their client’s

death penalty case.2 In my concurring statement, I expressed my view

     1
         479 S.W .3d 250, 255 (Tex. Crim . App. 2015) (Newell, J. concurring).

     2
         Id.
                                                                     Sims Dissenting --- 2

that the State would have been entitled to mandamus relief if the decision

were based solely upon the issue of a trial court’s failure to comply with

the requirements of Article 43.141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3

     However, I also explained why I had ultimately voted to deny

mandamus relief in the underlying case. It is at least unsettled whether

trial courts have inherent authority that is independent of statutes and

which allows trial courts to modify or rescind their own orders.4 Under

the Texas Constitution, district courts are invested with inherent authority

to execute their own judgments.5 And, in addition to express grants of

power conferred by constitution, statute, or common law, courts have

inherent and implied powers that provide a much broader foundation

upon which to act.6

     I believe that reasoning applies equally in this case even though the

Court is considering the application of a different statute related to the

setting of an execution date.             I vote to deny mandamus relief and I

     3
         Id. at 260.

     4
         Id. at 262.

     5
         See Kelly v. State, 676 S.W.2d 104, 107 (Tex. Crim . App. 1984).

     6
         See State v. Patrick, 86 S.W .3d 592, 601 (Tex. Crim . App. 2002) (Cochran, J.,
         dissenting); see also Tex. Gov’t. Code § 21.001(a) (setting out that a court has
         “all powers necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction and the enforcem ent of
         its lawful orders, including the authority to issue the writs and orders necessary
         or proper in aid of its jurisdiction.”).
                          Sims Dissenting --- 3

respectfully dissent.

Filed: February 8, 2023

Do Not Publish