Court Opinion

ID: 9679254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:45:24.22963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:11.825420
License: Public Domain

RICHARD H. EDELMAN, Justice,
dissenting on Rehearing En Banc.
A primary purpose of the due process notice requirement is to ensure that the opportunity for a hearing is meaningful. See City of West Covina v. Perkins, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 678, 681, 142 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999). Therefore, prior notice of the issues to be resolved at an adversary proceeding is central to due process1 and fundamental to fair procedure. See Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110, 126, 111 S.Ct. 1723, 114 L.Ed.2d 173 (1991). Due process is not satisfied where parties are not given prior notice of what is really at stake in a proceeding. See id. at 119-28, 111 S.Ct. 1723.
In this case, appellant was not given prior notice that the revocation of his appeal bond would be sought or entertained at the hearing on his petition for habeas corpus. The majority opinion takes the position that this lack of prior notice was overcome because: (1) appellant had “actual notice” that the State proposed to revoke his bond by virtue of the testimony of the State’s witnesses and the trial court’s comments concerning Smith’s violation of his bond conditions; and (2) appellant waived notice by participating in the hear*417ing without objecting that the State’s proof exceeded that needed to rebut his habeas corpus evidence and without requesting a continuance. Obviously, these considerations did not provide appellant with prior notice of the possibility that his bond might be revoked at the hearing. Nor does the law of criminal procedure, unlike the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,2- provide for such trial by implied consent. Accordingly, because appellant was not afforded due process with regard to the revocation of his appeal bond, the order revoking his bond should be reversed and remanded for possible further proceedings.
Chief Justice MURPHY and Justice MAURICE E. AMIDEI join in the dissent.

. See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 53, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993).

. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 67 (when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings).