*1 Sr., Lоvelady, pro se. R. Moreover, Hinson “has stated if he had re- have taken steps Segrest, McLennan John W. intent written -notice of the State’s ceived Waco, appellee. Atty., Dist. to introduсe extraneous evidence.” argues 182. Hinson S.W.3d at Autry, only, “It assumed from this record can be DISSENTING OPINION properly
that had counsel [trial] [HinsonJ’s State, counsel requested notice from the GRAY, dissenting. TOM intent to have known of the State’s on March We issued To the the State’s exhibits. use” one-of sep- without a concurred appeal. contrary, theory of the trial counsel’s which dis- in the arate extra- mitigation was admission appeal. missed the punishment Hinson’s wit- neous offenses: why agreed explain as the re- those offenses explained nesses original disposition wrong crowd “hanging sult of out I now must dissеnt. Hinson’s use of crack co- people” caine. immediately to me obvious affirm issue and We overrule Hinson’s of the Memoran- reading the first sentence judgment. im- the case had been Opinion dum designated as a criminal concurring with note.*
Justice VANCE reads Opinion The first sentence of the R. Sr. from “Richard December denial trial court’s The first request for medical records.” proce- paragraph proceeds REYES, Sr., Appellant, Richard R. history of the case follows: ‘We dural February Reyes on sent a letter to v. subject to dis- Texas, Appellee. STATE re- No for want missal No. 10-05-00087-CR. sponse has been received.” history, I could to dismiss appeal for at least four reasons: Waco. our files conceivably filed over 60 after Reyes’s complaint
order abоut which untimely is made. * State, concurs, "(Justice (Tex.Crim.App. v. drews 159 S.W.3d Vance (no 2005) strategy failing reasonable trial failure to the notice to held prosecutor's 37.07, misstatement law to correct sеc is entitled under article defendant † client).)” that is detrimental 3g, cannot be excused as "sound tion State, strategy.” Appellant Loredo v. 157 S.W.3d † noted that It should be both 2004) (following (Tex.App.-Waco petitions Jau 29-30 State have filed State, (Tex.App. 81-82 in Loredo. Loredo bert filed). 2000), pets, grounds, rev’d on other S.W.3d 26 Waco (Tex.Crim.App.2002)); see also An- T.G. S.W.3d 1
334
even with an implied ex motion for the document Reyes filed January tension Verburgt. 2005, of time under which was treated aas Dorner, Verburgt appeal, Reyes makes the following state- (Tex.1997). ment: “I am asking right for the 2. Based claim and the information tort clаim and other facts
file, for medical records Texas Tort Claim Act & ask the courts part parcel Reyes’s was and mercy to question & pro nunc tunc etc. to bring to a civil action against mercy, relief, certain decisions and the sаme as officials and the State the courts recognize stated facts of abuse possibly county well, and officials the courts.” While his self-crafted the denial of such are, thus pleadings say lеast, records to difficult to an interlocutory discovery decipher, they order clearly contemplate a civil over which we have jurisdiction. no action against the State and vаrious state Jack B. Anglin Co. Tipps, possibly and the county as well. (Tex.1992). 266, 272 S.W.2d But of course this is the document that As, came to us be, 8. as a notice of appeal, what not the believe to clerk’s record from pay underlying pro- failed to filing
fee, ceeding. The reason I and a cannot review the therefore dismissal was clerk’s record from proper. Gordon, underlying pro- See Gordon v. ceeding is because this case S.W.3d 2005 WL dismissed before the to time file that Tex.App. record came to LEXIS 2576 (Tex.App.- h.). pass. Waco March pet.
4. Reyes’s failure respond brings This me to thе document by correspondence an provided inde- Reyes after this Court dismissed his pendent pursuant basis for dismissal peal. on April tendered a Rules Appellate Procedure. filing documеnt for entitled “Petition for 42.3(c). Coram Nobis” which is dated March This, too, is a self-crafted document shortcomings, a judgment to decipher, is difficult but I dismissal was believe appropriate; trying and what tell is sрecifically, a us that we dismissal for want of jurisdiction a made mistake of fact proper under items 1 characteriz- ing a criminal majority, case. A rather than treat 'writ of coram nobis is A appeal as defined as “2. treated it as a writ crimi- error nal case directed to court for that we had review of its predicated own an “only alleged criminal case law;” errors of fact.” expressly provided by Dictionary Black’s Law finding (7th 1999). Thus, ed. West expression,' such this docu- majority dismissed ment characterized as a rehearing asking this Court to problem presents that now itself is judgment, rеview its own not a that the majority wants to treat a docu- discretionary in which review the review in response to our higher would be conducted court. for- ward believe that Accordingly, it has trying do сall our attention to an believe this to error of fact. The fact we are in error of proceeding. erroneous course is treating about this as a criminal case. Why is this be: inquiry first should It is the It is а civil case. not. attorney? by an represented pro- person not grievance an administrative appeal of copies of medical from the denial of cess my disagreement My failure to note it appears least is what records. At of this case was the characterization *3 upon the attachments to be based disagree- my to avoid the result for cоram petition nobis. time, which, thought I would at the of this disposition the ultimate not advance writ, effectively a I the grant would reasons as stated the our rehearing, and withdraw above, the appеal I felt that the cause and order opinion my that appears dismissed. it civil changed to reflect mem- with the other effort to avoid conflict then a criminal case. I would initially per- I bers of the procedural posture reevaluate issue, only immaterial ceived as an appropriate no- appeal determine complications of this in further resulted appeal get to be sent to this tices that need my gener- particular appeal and reinforces Specifically, on track case. back my practice dissent based al Reyes trial court anything if may believe to be persons what other that could be characterized as For inconsequential issues. immaterial or filed with appeal prior in issues created delay and additional Court, Reyes’s may appeal this notice of humbly apologize, this I most proceeding, if timely. have docu- been join memo- I the Court’s longer but can no as a ment which could be characterized dated randum timely for new trial motion March which dismissed court, Reyes in he have the would jurisdic- as a criminal case time frame of within extended tion. appeal; there- fore, respectfully dissent.1 his notice of would have been 26.1(a). timely. P. OPINION CONCURRING analysis, prop- In until the final we have VANCE, concurring. BILL
erly characterized this Reyes has filed additional go through apрropriate of Crim- to the Court disposition, only pleadings, for will fur- addressed procedures it to that inal which we will forward complicate procedural posture Appeals, ther discretionary re- if as a pause to note that this Court case. here Tex.R.App. are not issu- 68. We truly being appealed, a criminal case view. were Nobis, against sought other various addition to the Petition for Coram In court, any, file Petition judges. only filed a motion for leave to if than by a accompanied Peti- for Writ of Mandamus jurisdiction of a mandamus of Writ of Mandamus. The documents tiоn for judge persons be a district in these the Clerk of the Tenth Court were mailed to act, any, county if the ministerial where styled they if are The documents agree performed. I cannot should have been Ap- be filed in the Court of Criminal also forwarded that this document should is ad- peals. And the text of documents part of a as a of Criminal the Court County.” "Judges of McLennan We should review. documеnts, these clear that From Houston district courts of forward it book, working rule but with an outdated Unit, where the Eastham thing clear that is about the incarcerated, Reyes is is located. appears pleadings. the mandamus mg an opinion modify” to “correct or may have been requesting his prior opinion dismissing this cause for medical potentially records to pursue a Thus, want of irrelevant, Id. Tort Claims Act case is because Gray’s dissenting opinion Justice he is not post-conviction as a 50; rather, issued under Rule now de- motion his criminal case. cides, that he does not with his own dismissed jurisdic- wаnt of original decision in the the case. tion. See Kelly that, light write further pet.). the original opinion we have Reyes’s documents entitled “Petition jurisdiction over this criminal appeal.1 Nobes” аnd Coram “Motion for Leave to
Reyes was convicted trial Application Mandamus,” File ad- Writ court cause number 1998-807-C of aggra- the Court of Criminal Appeals, deadly vated weapon. assault with We asking for a review of affirmed that under our cause opinion. dismissal We must follow appel- Reyes’ 10-99-00226-CR. late rule 68 and forward the documents to review was refused. the Court of Appeаls as a petition- App for discretionary review. Tex.R. Although Reyes’s did P. 68. copy include trial court’s order from, that he now he hand-wrote a
copy of the order:
No. 1998-807-C
ORDER [sic]
Came toon be considered on December
1, 2004, that certain designat- ed the defendant as follows: PARK, Appellant, CITY OF WILLOW Request for medical records same, And after review court that the same should be and SQUAW DOWNS, CREEK respects
is in all DENIED. L.P., Appellee. Signed on December No. 2-04-397-CV. By George H. Allen Judge Presiding Fort Worth. Filed 2004 Dec-1 PM 12:35 Karen C.
Matkin District Clerk McLennan TXCo.
Reyes clearly for medi-
cal records under court cause
number for his criminal the 54th
District County, Court of McLennan him,
court which convicted and we do not review his denying request.
the order fact Frankly, it improper seems to dissent two issued. joined months later to an one