*1 ary review are summarily granted. The Ap- of to the Court are remanded causes PETI- APPELLANT’S ON Dis- Supreme Tеnth Judicial peals for the FOR DISCRETIONARY TIONS appellant’s of for reconsideration trict REVIEW opin- light in of this Cоurt’s of error points This Court Baggett v. ion for Appeals are taken from convictions respect to the opinion expresses no unlawfully carrying of a the offenses points of еrror. of the disposition ultimate driving Ap- while intoxicated. weapon and Appeals is of of the Court judgment The pellant convicted a trial before was to that remanded causе is and the vacated pleas guilty. of Punish- court consistent for further court days assessed at 90 each ment was opinion. this Additionally, the court assessed a cause. driving intoxicated fine while $100.00
conviction. point presented an identical of He appeals. of his main
error each failing erred in
tained the trial court alleged due to an
grant а motion to dismiss Speedy Trial Act under of the violation PRIMROSE, Appellant, Malcolm 32A.02, The Court of Artiсle V.A.C.C.P. v. in an un Appeals affirmed the convictions opinion delivered October published of STATE 10-86-030-CR and 1986 in cause numbers No. 69736. 10-86-031-CR, styled v Lionel Coronado . court refused to Texas. The The State оf Court of Criminal of speedy trial the merits of the address Rather, by appellant. presented claims Feb. presented rejected points of error court of its by appellant on the basis (Tex.App.
Stewart
—Waco, 1985, pet.) in it no which was Speedy Trial Act is unconstitutional caрtion.
due to a deficient Ap- deciding
peals did not have the benefit opinion Baggett
Court’s recent There, (Tex.Cr.App.1987).
722 S.W.2d admend-
it held that under the recent was III, 35 of the Texas
ment to Article Section
Constitution, longer no has court Legislature
power to an act of the declare insufficiency of due to the
unconstitutional Although opinion in this caption.
its amendment,
cause wаs delivered before opinion by the Court of note that the through the issuance
Appeals is not final timely filing of mandate due to the discretionary review. petitions for
lant’s 86(a)(1).
Tex.App.Pro. Rule
Therefore, pursuant authority Tex.App.Pro.
ferred on this Court
202(k), appellant’s petitions discretion-
previous
Novеmber
V.T.C.A. Penal
Code,
19.03(a)(2).
9,
On December
§
appellant
State filed a motion to hold
with-
heаring
pursuant
out bail. A
was held
to
12,
that motion on December
at the conclu-
grant-
sion of which thе State’s motion was
Appellant
ap-
ed.
filed a written notice of
peal
16,
designate
on December
but did not
proceed.
what court he intended to
An
appellate
was filed
the Clerk of
brief
28,1987.
January
this Court on
The cause
argument
was submitted on briefs and oral
18,
by apрellant February
appellant argues
In his brief
proof
State failed to meet its burden of
рroof
establish “the
is
evident” that
murder,
capital
event he is convicted of
jury
speciаl
would
answer
issues
37.071, V.A.C.C.P.,
affirmatively.
See, e.g.,
Derese,
parte
Ex
In Beck v. (Tex.Cr.App.1983), murder de sought appellate fendant relief in this Court after the district court refused to set upon application corpus. bail for habeas already brought appeal He had in the court, Appeals, rely First Court of but that ing Clapp on 949 S.W.2d (Tex.Cr.App.1982), “disclaimed James, appellant. Bryan, Jim W. appeal to entertain an from the order Robert Bryan, Turner, Atty., Dist. Bill corpus proceedings denying habeas bail.” Austin, for the Atty.,
Huttash, State’s
1. All
late lies the court of general jurisdictional
under the provisions V,
of Article 5 and 6 of the Texas Con- §§
stitution,2 and Beck we so held. See also
Tex.R.App.Pro.Rule 44.3
Accordingly, purported appeal to this *3 the instant cause is dismissed.
ONION, Presiding Judge, concurring.
I concur in the result reached that this jurisdiction
Court has no of this matter аnd purported appeal to this Court
should join be dismissed. I do not footnote
# 3 of the majority opinion. If this Court
does not have and dismisses a
purported appeal, express we should not that,
first time absent a habeas
corpus proceeding, lies from the
order entered herein. That decision should
be made in proceedings. these GARZA, Appellant,
Juan
The STATE of
No. 1018-85.
Court of Criminal
March 2. Nor does this Court have "appeal thаt the should be dismissed in- appeal by simple virtue of the fact that it is [a]ppellant recоgnized structions for to seek the ancillary prosecution. to a murder review, i.e., proрer and method of habeas cor- V, 5, supra, provides "appeal of all cases However, 44(a), pus.” supra, clearly Rule penalty in which the death has been assessed tеmplates corpus direct "in habeas and " Appeals.” shall be to the Court of Criminal That is tо be "tak- 44(b), appeals,” supra, en to the court of brief, reply citing State in its Arts. 11.23 by may and the dеcision rendered that court 11.41, V.A.C.C.P.,argues and that "habeas cor- subject discretionary then be review pus proper people is the vehicle for held without 44(e), supra. Court. Rule offense," bail under indictment for a and