742 SW2D 659 - Lagrone v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably McFarland v. State (1996), Jones v. State (1992)

25 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.

CLINTON, Judge,

¶1dissenting.

¶2The Fort Worth Court of Appeals concluded that “there is insufficient information in the arrest warrant’s affidavit to connect appellant to the crime in question.” So appellant won on that point, and certainly is not now contending the Fort Worth Court was in error; on the contrary, in his brief he quotes and relies on that finding, and then argues that the State has failed to show his confession is not the product of his illegal arrest. The State has not petitioned for discretionary review of the crucial finding against it made by the Fort Worth Court. Tex.R.App.Pro. Rule 202(c). Therefore, that issue is not before this Court.

¶3We granted appellant’s petition because although the Fort Worth Court found arrest of appellant illegal it did not make a proper analysis to determine whether its taint was removed by subsequent events. See majority opinion at 660-61. However, the majority will not examine the reasoning of the Fort Worth Court — that which we determined should be reviewed.

¶4Instead, once again, a majority of this Court gratuitously reaches out to decide a nonissue in favor of the State. It simply will not require the State — or this Court, *663for that matter — to abide by our own rules. See, e.g., my dissenting opinion in Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Cr.App.1987).

¶5I dissent.