983 SW2D 738 - Connolly v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Foreman v. Dretke (2004), State v. Colyandro (2007)

2 federal appellate · 46 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.

KELLER, J.,

¶1filed a concurring opinion in which McCORMICK, P.J. and WOMACK, J., joined.

¶2I join the majority opinion’s holding that the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction to evaluate appellant’s due diligence claim. However, I do not, by joining this opinion, express any support for the legitimacy of the so-called “due diligence” defense. This “defense” appears to have been created out of thin air in Stover v. State, 365 S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Crim.App.1963), which was then relied upon without question in subsequent cases. See Stover, 365 S.W.2d at 809; Prior v. State, 795 S.W.2d 179, 183 (Tex.Crim.App.1990)(quoting Stover); Langston v. State, 800 S.W.2d 553, 554 (quoting Priorquoting Stover); Rodriguez v. State, 804 S.W.2d 516, 517-518 (Tex.Crim.App.1991)(citing Prior, Stover, and Langston); Harris v. State, 843 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)(citing Langston, Prior, and Rodriguez). Whether the law imposes upon the State the duty to exercise diligence in apprehending a probationer is a question worth reconsidering in an appropriate case.