Court Opinion

ID: 9766954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:04:22.0142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:27.408641
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting in part and concurring in part).
I concur in the order of this Court in withdrawing the mandate and abating the appeal, but dissent to their refusal to follow the unanimous holding of this Court in Schaeffer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 363 S.W.2d 944, (decided in January of this year) in which we held that where an appeal is abated, the prior opinions should be withdrawn. In White v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 299 S.W.2d 143 and Vasquez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 238 S.W.2d 968, we held that the death of the appellant rendered moot all matters presented by the appeal. Therefore, the prior opinions in this case have, no value as precedent. I would not make this protest were I not deeply convinced that my brethren are in error in this case and were it not for the fact that the rules of search and seizure are among the most serious questions that come to this Court for decision.
My brethren can take no solace in the refusal of the Supreme Court of the United Stat'is to grant a writ of certiorari in this case because as that Court said in United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 43 S.Ct. 181, 67 L.Ed. 361, the denial of the writ of cer-tiorari imparts no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.