*1 504 previously
have recognized that the defen may dant not appeal the trial court’s deter adjudicate mination to an original offense upon probation.4 violation of Examples of
challenges to a trial court’s decision to
adjudicate include a challenge to the suffi
ciency of the support evidence to the trial adjudication guilt
court’s and a claim of ineffective assistance of at counsel
hearing adjudicate. on the motion to State, 1, (Tex. Phynes v. State, Crim.App.1992); Olowosuko v. 940, 942 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). mayWe not consider this contention of error. judgment is affirmed. In re LARE DOCTORS’ HOSPITAL OF
DO, Partnership, doing Limited busi Hospital
ness as Columbia Doctors’ Laredo.
No. 04-99-00465-CV. Texas, Appeals Court of San Antonio. 11, Aug. 42.12, 5(b) State, (Tex.Crim. Phynes § 4. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. v. State, (Vernon State, Supp.1999); Connolly App.1992); Tillman v. ref'd). (Tex.Crim.App.1999); (Tex.App.-Fort pel. *2 HARDBERGER, Chief PHIL
Sitting: GREEN, Justice W. PAUL Justice ANGELINI, KAREN
OPINION GREEN, Justice. by: PAUL W.
Opinion in- involves the original proceeding This dis- of the new of Rule 192.3 terpretation court construed The trial covery rules. of a deposition the permit rule to the pro- the permit and to consulting witness income tax testifying witness’s duction of appointment calendars. schedules and mandamus. conditionally the writ of grant
Background plaintiffs in interest and parties
The real Martinez, below, and Humberto Enedelia relator, Lar- Hospital of Doctors’ sued the edo, arising from malpractice for medical plain- Martinez. The Lynette birth of of Dr. John depositions tiffs noticed Seals, testifying designated as originally consulting as a re-designated but witness Grossman, a testi- and Dr. Herbert expert, subpoe- also The fying expert. tax schedules and doctors’ income naed the In re- personal calendars. Dr. Grossman’s quash hospital moved sponse, the pro- moved for a and further depositions hearing on these At the tective order. motions, argued they needed the bias documents to show requested experts. hospital’s signed court the trial
On June of Dr. Seals depositions setting order ordering each doc- and Dr. Grossman “all schedules in camera produce tor income tax re- federal attached to their Lotz, Jr., Steward, Brian Harold J. C. years past that] three [for turns ... Associates, P.C., E. Sharon Calla- Lotz & medico-legal in the income derived indicate P.C., Jefferson, Crofts, Callaway & way, experts context as either and/or Patterson, Wag- Patterson & M. Kenneth also or- The court consulting experts.” Antonio, ner, L.L.P., appellant. for San in camera produce Dr. Grossman dered years. three past for the Mastín, his calendars Halbardier, N. Malcolm C. John relief. mandamus sought then Antonio, hospital The appellee. San Scope Originally, hospital designated Standard Review Seals, experts, including three as testi To be entitled to mandamus re fying pediatric witnesses the field of lief, hospital that the must show trial neurology. hospital claims that Dr. court abused its discretion and that opinions by Seals’ have not been reviewed *3 hospital adequate remedy has no at law. witnesses, any testifying plaintiffs and the Packer, 833, See Walker v. 827 S.W.2d Instead, have not refuted this claim. (Tex.1992). in Remedy by appeal 839 is plaintiffs re-designation assert is a adequate when an order requires the dis subterfuge designated because the hospital exempted closure of information from dis a replacement telling Seals after covery. See id. at 843. To determine experts the trial court it did not need three whether such an order an is abuse of fact, however, in the same field. This does discretion, we to defer the trial court’s not imply improper, prohibited purpose. reviewing factual determinations while its Thus, the trial court abused its discretion legal Pony determinations de novo. Ex ordering deposition in of Dr. Seals. Morris, press Corp. Courier v. 921 S.W.2d (Tex 817, 1996, 820 .App. Antonio no — San Dr. Grossman —Income Tax writ). The trial abuses its court discre Schedules & Calendars it properly apply tion when fails to facts, undisputed law to the when it acts Citing Young, Russell v. 452 434 S.W.2d arbitrarily unreasonably, or or when its (Tex.1970), hospital contends that in- ruling is based on factual assertions un come tax of non- schedules and calendars supported by Corp. the record. party are not witnesses discoverable Microsoft (Tex. 602, v. 914 Manning, S.W.2d 607 response, show bias. In dism’d). 1995, App. writ by claim overruled the new this case was — Texarkana
discovery
disagree that new
rules. We
rule 192.3 overruled Russell.
Consulting Expert
Dr. Seals —The
hospital
plaintiffs may
Historically,
contends the
evidence of a wit
relevant,
Seals,
depose Dr.
re-designat-
not
who was
ness’s bias has been considered
admissible,
expert
consulting
ed from a
and discoverable. See
Tex.R.
613(b);
Walker,
192.3;
expert.
response,
In
claim Evid.
P.
Tex.R.
Civ.
re-designation
improper.
by
is
One commentator sought information the “probably may” rule 192.3 overrule that another from obtain was unavailable O’Connoe, al., Russell. et SeeMiCHOL 192.3(e)(5) (1999), "proba which states Rule cite al., et O’Connor Michol O Young." bly may overrule Russell v. Texas Civil Trials O’Connor’s Rules source, or that the potential other sources i.e, information, interrogatories,
of such re- admission, etc., quests for depositions, had pursued been seeking discovery before the tax returns. Since the trial court explore
failed to other methods of obtain- information, ing the it abused its discre- tion, and there is no need to determine 192.3(e)(5)
whether rule overrules Russell progeny. and its I Because believe the majority addresses an important issue that
is not necessary for the resolution of this
proceeding, I granting concur relief language mandamus but not the majority’s opinion. Parks, Parks, Jimmy Phillips & San An-
tonio, appellant. Welsh,
Mary Beth Asst. Dist. Criminal *5 Antonio, Atty., San appellee. HARDBERGER, Sitting: PHIL Chief Justice, LÓPEZ, Justice, ALMA L. PAUL GREEN, W. Justice. ARRIAGA, Appellant, Alberto OPINION Texas, Appellee. The STATE of LÓPEZ, Opinion by: ALMA L. No. 04-98-00577-CR. appeal jury This is an a verdict from Texas, of Appeals Court finding appellant, Arriaga, guilty Alberto San Antonio. fabricating with or tampering evidence. TEX. PENAL ANN. generally CODE Aug. 09(a)(2). § 37. The trial court entered
judgment to two appellant and sentenced years community supervision. ap- On peal, appellant challenges legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. We judgment. affirm the trial court’s Investigation The Accident 30, 1995, On December between 8:30 a.m., Arriaga, patrol 9:00 Alberto officer Department, with the San Antonio Police was called to the scene of a two-car acci- dent at the intersection of Sunrise Silent stop sign and Tezel Road. A and a median separate the lanes of traffic. The drivers involved in the accident were Katherine Wansley Wansley’s Nanette Ramirez. son, car, taken passenger in her was by his fa- from the scene of the accident