662 SW2D 3 - Hicks v. Duncan

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2013

16 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1DISSENTING OPINION TO COURT’S REFUSING PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TEAGUE, Judge.

¶2Invoking this Court’s Rules 302(c)(6) and 304(a), Hon. Jimmie Duncan, the elected judge of the County Criminal Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County, pro se, and Hon. John Holmes, the District Attorney of Harris County, acting on behalf of the State of Texas, have each filed petitions for discretionary review with this Court. Their complaints are centered on what they claim to be erroneous factual and legal statements which are contained in an opinion the First Court of Appeals issued in its cause entitled Hicks v. Duncan, 651 S.W.2d 871 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1983).

¶3After carefully reviewing all of the records before this Court which concern the opinion of the Court of Appeals, I find that Judge Duncan and Mr. Holmes have correctly asserted in their respective petitions that the opinion of the Court of Appeals was advisory and is chockfull of erroneous major factual and legal statements.

¶4This Court should expressly overrule the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Because it does not do so, I respectfully dissent.