Court Opinion

ID: 9811744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:27:51.164617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:17.532026
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
BILL VANCE, Justice,
concurring.
Richard Reyes has filed additional pleadings, addressed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which we will forward to that Court as a petition for discretionary review. Tex.R.App. P. 68. We are not issu-*336mg an opinion to “correct or modify” our prior opinion dismissing this cause for want of jurisdiction. Id. 50. Thus, Chief Justice Gray’s dissenting opinion is not issued under Rule 50; rather, he now decides, that he does not agree with his own decision in the original opinion in the case. In light of that, I write to further explain the original opinion and why we have no jurisdiction over this criminal appeal.1
Reyes was convicted in 1999 in trial court cause number 1998-807-C of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. We affirmed that judgment under our cause number 10-99-00226-CR. Reyes’ petition for discretionary review was refused.
Although Reyes’s notice of appeal did not include a copy of the trial court’s order that he now appeals from, he hand-wrote a copy of the order:
No. 1998-807-C
ORDER [sic]
Came on to be considered on December 1, 2004, that certain document designated by the defendant as follows:
Request for medical records (pro se) And after review of same, the court is of the opinion that the same should be and is in all respects DENIED.
Signed on December 1, 2004
By George H. Allen
Judge Presiding
Filed 2004 Dec-1 PM 12:35 Karen C. Matkin District Clerk McLennan Co. TX
Reyes clearly filed his request for medical records under the trial court cause number for his criminal case in the 54th District Court of McLennan County, the court which convicted him, and we do not have jurisdiction to review his appeal of the order denying his request. The fact that Reyes may have been requesting his medical records to potentially pursue a Tort Claims Act case is irrelevant, because he filed his request as a post-conviction motion in his criminal case. Thus, we dismissed this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Kelly v. State, 151 S.W.3d 683, 685 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, no pet.).
Reyes’s documents entitled “Petition for Coram Nobes” and “Motion for Leave to File Application for Writ Mandamus,” addressed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, could only be asking for a review of our dismissal opinion. We must follow appellate rule 68 and forward the documents to the Court of Criminal Appeals as a petition-for discretionary review. See Tex.R. App P. 68.

. Frankly, it seems improper to dissent two months later to an opinion one joined when issued.