*1 Accordingly, because CIP has shown that agreement arbitration
a written exists and Plaintiffs’ claims fall
that the within the agreement,
scope hearing of that without argument
oral to Texas Rule Appellate Procedure conditionally grants
the court the writ of
mandamus and directs the trial court to
order that all proceed claims to arbitration
under the Federal Arbitration Act. The
clerk is only instructed to issue the writ
should the trial court fail to follow our
direction. SAENZ, Appellant,
Horencio Fernandez Texas, Appellee. STATE
No. 1205-90. Texas,
Court of Criminal
En Banc.
Nov. *2 exiting previously entering and
observed day apartment. that the war- On executed, was he was also observed rant exiting the He entering and taken shortly stopped thereafter and was complex driveway at the custody into on a Conn, Houston, Mary E. apartment and returned to the where Holmes, Jr., Atty., B. Dist. and J. John he being executed. When warrant was Hudson, Atty., Harvey Asst. Dist. Hous- arrested, currency recov- certain Huttash, Austin, ton, Atty., Robert State’s pocket. apartment from At a ered his for State. to be cocaine was substance determined Also, Lighting a &
discovered. Houston and a Company Power bill Texas Vehicle there, Registration found both OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION at appellant, addressed but which were REVIEW
FOR DISCRETIONARY Porte, Texas. addresses La two different OVERSTREET, Judge. currency re- Testimony indicated that the appellant belonged to the covered from by Appellant charged indictment money Department. Pasadena Police possession with the offense of of less that subject” given had been “to a earlier cocaine, 28 grams alleged oc- have day. testifying officer had last same 26,1985. curred on or about November On money seen the “less than an hour” before September 18, 1986 in 177th Judicial money and re- was arrested County, District Court Harris covered. That this was the same guilty jury was found and sentenced by comparing previously it to was verified “eight years the court to confinement in photocopies. The also testi- made officer penitentiary.”1 granted ap- the state We quarter fied that he “recovered ounce pellant’s ground sole for review which averred, very cocaine.” unclear from whom or It “The Court of erred in quarter recov- from where this ounce was holding testimony the admission of and uncharged ered.2 An exhibit was later marked about an sale of cocaine at a quarter location different from the location where identified as “a ounce of cocaine” charged testimony specifically offense occurred was ever described not but offense, finding came, actually extraneous and thus it ad- nor was wherefrom it it ever vigor- missible.” Appellant introduced into evidence.3 objected ously repeatedly to the above- testimony regarding described I. being extrane- based collateral OF SUMMARY PERTINENT FACTS offenses, matter, ous extraneous outweigh effect would reveals November The record that on sought He and re- Police value. even officers the Pasadena De- objection line of partment running ceived “a executed a search warrant at a [that] testimony.” particular apartment. Appellant been transcript subject, subject. other It does 1. that the does not contain a tioned or some We note However, judgment copy we appear of a or sentence. to have been recovered from to discern the above-detailed informa- are able apartment which was searched. and such does tion from the statement correspond facts allegations. parties’ with the prosecutor argue jury did that the 3.The subject. "met with And officer said that he dissenting opinions from was, got testimony you get? did his what Court of and the State’s and Fourteenth argu- fourth of an ounce of cocaine." Later very all it is diffi- briefs concur that he ment she to find that "what exhorted mysterious quar- from cult to discern where (appellant] had on him was cocaine." It to have been came. would seem ter ounce appellant, from either the above-men- recovered
II. Rehearing), recently explicitly detailed proper analysis of extraneous offense APPELLANT’S CLAIM evidence, the trial and both Appellant appeal claims on levels, per Texas Rules of Article IV the *3 testimony above-described indicated that belaboring Criminal Evidence.4 Without prior his to arrest he had met with “the explicated Montgomery, canons in suf the subject” acquired po- and somehow marked say appropriate objec to after fice it that money subject” acquired lice while “the tions, admissible, to extraneous offense be cocaine and that such was inadmissible ex- apart sup evidence must relevant from be evidence, traneous offense specifically of a porting an inference of character conformi prior drug purchase/sale. The State re- probative ty and such evidence’s value sponded that recovery money the of the substantially outweighed by must not be not, itself, from does in and of danger prejudice the of unfair or other constitute evidence of an extraneous of- negative (e.g. confusion of attributes fense, recovery and if the money of such is issues, misleading delay, jury, undue not connected to an extraneous offense presentation needless of cumulative evi then such an irrelevant detail which is dence). We review trial court’s actions probative any neither issue in the case regarding admissibility evi nor State dence under an of discretion stan abuse appellant’s claims that sale of to an cocaine agent dard. undercover a short time before execution of the search warrant would Appellant’s objections were above-noted link irrefutably seem to to the quite properly bring sufficient to his com- apartment, in contraband found thus plaint to the trial court’s attention. The such evidence was admissible and the trial record does not reflect that there was limiting in testimony court erred argument by the discussion or State vague references of “marked” rath- evidence, challenged although favor of the permitting er than the State to introduce recovering as the first mentioned witness every drug detail of the extraneous sale. money, appellant requested confer- a bench The Fourteenth disa- ence, whereupon an unrecited “[o]ff-the-
greed appellant’s extraneous offense place. record discussion” took The trial claim. Fernandez Saenz v. simply appellant’s objec- overruled (Tex.App. [14th —Houston tions.5 1990). It held that the did trial court Dist.] evidence, admitting not err ostensi- Appellant’s complaint relates bly “probative such was because evidence uncharged “testimony about an sale of co linking appellant to the contraband found from loca caine at a location different apartment.” Id. occurred;” charged tion where the offense possession of “marked” i.e. that III. testimony money coupled with the about ANALYSIS EXTRANEOUS OFFENSE mysterious “quarter recovery of the that he had In 810 ounce of cocaine” insinuated Montgomery v. (Opinion acquired being on S.W.2d 372 somehow something applicable get "hung up 4. We note that these rules are to the not want to bar, spite case at of the date on which the prior have occurred to the issue [sic] occurred, alleged offense was to have warrant,” argued search those the State place September the trial took after up execution of the other facts which led to the effective date of said rules. See Willard v. "go[es] warrant into the value of it in (Tex.Cr.App.1986). 719 S.W.2d something, [appellant’s] involvement testifying officer] involvement with [the jury 5. We do note that when the was removed that, drug prior to that is and the transaction objection, after an earlier there were discus- very very probative substantial and to the case” attempting about the State to establish sions day. same and that such occurred on the probable cause for issuance of the search war- indicated that it did rant. While the trial court registration sale. The State now the same bedroom as were in a cocaine involved properly service bill. The cocaine was that such an inference was and electric claims plastic bags in prove found in several small clear in evidence before placed and small amounts requisite quantity affirmative link to the contra- of “residue report ex- powder.” in the The lab recovered As such of white band inference the total com- certainly logically pro- could amination sheet indicate that link, weight such a we conclude of the cocaine recovered vide rea- bined (These grams. perception logic apartment was .30016 sonable and common .0686, .2308, quantities of experience separate the trial court could have rea- were in .00009, .00007, grams respec- sonably challenged concluded that the evi- and .00060 *4 specifically purpose tively.)7 Drug paraphernalia, dence served some than other hemostats, glass, ciga- conformity; pipes, plastic character and a therefore there was roller, apart- in the finding no abuse of discretion in such. rette was also found State, Montgomery 391; re- paraphernalia of the was 810 S.W.2d at ment. Some 404(b). mentioned bed- previously Tex.R.Crim.Evid. So after conclud- covered in the living in that there was no error in the trial room while some was found the straw, funnel, implied finding challenged Additionally, court’s that the room area. tube, blades, apart glass evidence had all of which relevance from charac- and razor residue, conformity, powder ter we must decide were re- now wheth- contained white any [previ- er there parts abuse of discretion in covered from “various admitting light appel- living the in of the ously evidence bedroom and mentioned] objection weights lant’s “that the effect room.” A set of to a scale was outweigh any probative would value.” that recovered. The officer testified paraphernalia the was not above-described We have stated that evidence of other fingerprints. examined and tested for crimes, wrongs, or acts create “unfair prejudice” if under the circumstances a The officer admitted that he did not jury likely long would be more an im- draw know how the cocaine had been the permissible conformity apartment brought character inference or it there. who permissible than the inference for which seen He also admitted he had never relevant, the evidence is or if appellant apartment it otherwise bedroom in the specifically using any distracts the from the possession nor of or charged testify offense and them paraphernalia. invites to convict He did that he had appellant apartment on a moral or emotional basis rather than observed response as a reasoned “probably during to the relevant evi- four or five times” sur- Montgomery entering “maybe dence. him S.W.2d veillance and saw it times,” inquiry at 395. must also We make an into two or three and on at least one the State’s need for the evidence. Id. using key. occasion He also testified two-year-old boy that a and a woman The claims that it evi- State needed the search, present during and that provide dence to an affirmative link be- woman and another woman who was appellant tween and the cocaine found present agree- lease were named on the apartment. The record reflects that apartment. previ- ment for that As stated previously registra- mentioned vehicle ously appellant was arrested outside the indicate tion and electric service bill out-of- apartment. appellant, though town addresses for both appear periods prior probative to November We that the value of be observe complained testimony, from i.e. that re- of 1985.6 cocaine was recovered grams registration report lists the date issued as also indicates that 5.62 6. The vehicle lab; expired analyzed by "7-13-84" and indicates that it on the cocaine was also however day Lighting last of June 1985. The Houston & evidence that cocaine was never admitted into Company Power bill indicates that it is a "final mysterious "quarter appear and would to be the unspecified service at an former ad- bill" for recovering ounce” that the officer testified to billing dress and denotes a date of "Oct[.] specifying wherefrom. without past due date 1.” 1985” with of “Oct[J garding appellant’s possession anonymous “subject,” yet from the later low, allowing no error in money, particu- rather held that there was “marked” argue that such was recovered light fact State larly State Fernandez Saenz v. from explicitly appellant never did connect to a at 766 and 768. avers, drug appears As it sale. surrounding challenged confusion by way connection made that that did have a ten- “marked” evidence appellant possessed innuendo dency jury. to mislead the re- “marked” which was somehow previously “quarter lated to the mentioned criteria, relevant viewed as Where ounce of cocaine” was recovered which possible, lead to the conclu objectively as parts from this innuendo unknown. While danger prejudice of unfair sion logically provide could an affirma- evidence outweighed substantially val link and the cocaine tive between evidence, challenged we must ue apartment, found at the such link would be failing erred in declare that the trial court tenuous, quite very pro- and such was not Montgomery v. to exclude it. appellant intentionally bative of whether or pro at 395. We conclude that the knowingly possessed the cocaine found at value of the evidence was substan bative *5 the We therefore conclude outweighed, the tially thus evidence was presented very that said evidence as had a inadmissible and the trial court erred probative value. low failing to exclude it. abused its discretion Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 403. goes saying It without that insinuated in- exchange money involvement judgment therefore reverse the We volving “quarter ounce of cocaine” would court of and remand this cause the standing person be to a trial for to that court to conduct a harm possession of a Such controlled substance. 81(b)(2). Tex.R.App.Proc. to envelop prejudice appear would the ac- CLINTON, Judge, concurring. regardless degree specifici- the cused proven he ty to which it was was I in such a transaction. If there involved in- showing majority adopts no clear of the accused’s a view of the evi- such, dissenting opinion it could said that the volvement be dence shared be- low, viz: prejudice was unfair. We conclude it does not indicate the challenged evi- “quarter that the State’s use of the source of the ounce of cocaine.” connecting Nevertheless, specifically appel- appears dence without what be drug unfairly thinking, any lant to the inferred sale was and without State’s wishful analysis, majority concludes this evi- prejudicial. relevance to show an affir- dence has some con- We also consider whether there was appellant the con- mative link between misleading the issues or fusion of apartment. found in the Thus the traband admitting challenged evidence. jury in per- majority concludes “that reasonable appear that there does to have We observe experience the ception logic and common engendered quite been a bit of confusion reasonably concluded trial court could have challenged by the admission of the evi- challenged served some evidence dence and the circumstances of than character conformi- purpose other “marked” acquisition of the deference, ty^]” Op. at 27. Majority With prosecutor evidenced explained. never disagree. I must argued in that she to the some confusion him,” any tendency appel- to connect appellant had cocaine “on To have apart- arguments the cocaine yet primary thrust of her lant to recovered ment, ounce of affirmatively “quarter linked evidence of the appellant was that only that We have to show not apartment. found in the cocaine” would to the cocaine it, it came from appeals’ ma- sold but that that the court of also observe That had point apartment. construed the jority opinion at one within possession is money in his it indicated that the marked evidence such that it at some time some evidence he received was recovered “quarter ounce of cocaine” Tex.R.Cr.Evid., Rule prejudice,” infer fair etc. within an hour of his arrest. We go need far to resolve this “subject” he from the 403. We not so received it to whom cause, given it. But the testifying officer had however. what, any- not show for if evidence does
thing, given II quarter That a ounce of cocaine was recov- agree also does ered later from an undisclosed source remand cause for assessment of should establish, tenuously, appel- not even non, harmfulness, of ap vel in the court “subject” to lant sold it to the whom 81(b)(2). peals. Tex.R.App.Proc., Rule Be given the marked testifying officer court, discretionary are review cause we knowing money. the source of the Without not, context, “the cocaine, quarter we cannot make ounce id., court,” we should not resolve issue connecting any inference it to rational impres matter of first of harmfulness as a pellant It has “ten- or the persistent my sion. Consistent with insis dency the existence of fact to make respective constitutional tences that consequence that is of to the determination appeals and of this roles of our courts of probable or proba- of the action more less preserved practice,* I be would ble than it. it would be without” Tex.R.Cr. question to the court leave the of harm Evid., to this prosecu- Rule 401. Relevant remand, subject appeals to resolve on tion, proves nothing it at all. It is even Gipson discretionary our review. See conformity proba- character evidence. Its Majority Op. tive value is not “low.” at 28. J., IIA). (Benavides, concurring, Part It is nil. *6 J., BENAVIDES, For I joins. this reason conclude evidence is 401, hence, not under Rule and is relevant CAMPBELL, J., II. joins part Tex.R.Cr.Evid., subject objection under to Rule The trial court erred to overrule AND CONCURRING DISSENTING appellant’s objection that it was an “extra- APPELLANT’S PETI- OPINION ON State, Montgomery v. neous 810 matter.” RE- TION FOR DISCRETIONARY 372, (Tex.Cr.App.1991) (Opin- S.W.2d at 387 VIEW motion). rehearing ion on on own Court’s McCORMICK, Presiding Judge, course, Of the evidence no concurring dissenting. and all, probative agree I value at agree that “its value is sub- I do not that the admission error, outweighed by danger stantially complained of un- of evidence was but be- * State, 490, understanding McElroy prop- at After a common of the v. 720 S.W.2d 495-496 1981 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) (concurring opinion); er review function of this Court constitutional authority jurisdiction vis-a-vis and direct State, (Tex.Cr.App. Tallant v. peal appeals competing as of courts of evolved 1987); developed views and on related matters 246, State, v. S.W.2d at 258-260 Meshell 739 chronological ultimately Below is a resolved. (Tex.Cr.App.1987) (dissenting opinion); cases, e.g.: sampling of illustrative 781, State, Schwerdtfeger at v. 749 S.W.2d 782- 357, State, 358, S.W.2d at Turner v. 662 362 (dissenting opinion); (Tex.Cr.App.1988) 784 (dissenting opinion); (Tex.Cr.App.1984) 502, State, v. S.W.2d at 503-504 751 Jefferson 614, State, (Tex. 681 S.W.2d at 616 Lambrecht v. (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (dissenting opinions); Cr.App.1984); State, 772, (Tex.Cr. v. 758 S.W.2d 784-785 Juarez 524, State, Dugard v. 688 at 532-534 App.1988) (dissenting opinion); J., (Clinton, dissenting (Tex.Cr.App.1985) 277, 278, State, v. at n. 2 Johnson 760 State, opinion) (adopted v. in Williams (Tex.Cr.App.1988); (Tex.Cr.App.1989)); S.W.2d 802 769, (Tex.Cr. State, Bynum at 776 v. 767 S.W.2d 651, (Tex. State, Laday v. 685 S.W.2d 652-654 App.1989); (concurring dissenting opin Cr.App.1985) State, (Tex.Cr. at 297 Leal v. 773 S.W.2d ions); App.1989); State, v. 711 S.W.2d at 252-253 Chambers State, (Tex.Cr.App.1990); Lee v. 791 S.W.2d (concurring opinion); at 698-701 Holland v. 802 S.W.2d Degrate (Tex.Cr.App. 712 S.W.2d (Tex.Cr.App.1991). 1986); special original
lieve the Court of jurisdic- correct cases where I, therefore, conferred, disposition. its tion not a dissent to the is “trial court” or a court of instance. finding of error. first appellate court, As an However, this Court is for the reasons set forth required are perform analysis a harm Judge concurring Part II of opin- Clinton’s 81(b)(2) to Rule when we find ion, I concur in the remand to the Court error. harm, any. for assessment of if II. joins concurring J. this WHITE remand, argue, support Some dissenting opinion. appeals the court of did not render a “deci BAIRD, Judge, concurring part harm, therefore, sion” on the issue there dissenting part. is no decision this Court to review. join I final paragraph all but the argument is without merit. A harm majority opinion and dissent to the remand integral, analysis part nondivisible following reasons, of this cause. For Judge of error. determination As feel perform analysis. we should the harm correctly Overstreet noted in Miller (Tex.Cr. 815 S.W.2d 585 n. 2 I. App.1991), always prop “harm is an issue plain language Tex.R.App.Proc. erly before whenever error is 81(b)(2) Rule requires “appellate court” Consequently, discovered.” we should perform analysis. harm Rule prematurely end our review with the deter 81(b)(2)provides: mination of error and remand the case appellate
If the
record in a criminal
appeals.
court of
case
in the proceedings
reveals error
be-
legitimate
There is no
reason for remand-
low,
appellate
court shall reverse
a case for a harm
when the
judgment
review,
under
unless the
recognize
court of
failed to
beyond
determines
error in the first instance. And it is unreal-
reasonable
that the error
doubt
made
expect
81(b)(2)
istic to
dictates
of Rule
contribution to the conviction or to the
fully
to be
realized
court that
failed
*7
punishment.1
recognize
initially
error
because the court
Appeals
appel-
Court of Criminal
is an
appeals
of
implicitly
by
found no harm
rules,
late court under our
our Constitution
determining there was no error.
parlance
and in the
of
common
that term.
Moreover,
preempt
we do
the court
Tex.R.App.Proc.
provides:
3
‘Ap-
Rule
"...
appeals
perform
analy-
when we
a harm
pellate court’
includes
courts of
202(a)
Tex.R.App.Proc.Rule
sis.
provides:
peals,
Supreme
Court and the Court of
Appeals
“The
Court of Criminal
re-
Appeals.”
Criminal
appeals
view decision of
court of
in a
Further,
is an appellate
this Court
court
petition
by
criminal case
V,
pro-
under the Constitution. Art.
5§
Dictionary
or the State.” Black’s Law
vides: “The
Criminal
Court
(5th
1983)
494-5
ed.
defines
as
a decision
jurisdiction
shall
final appellate
have
coex-
A
arrived
determination
at after con-
tensive with the limits of the state....”
facts, and,
legal
sideration of
con-
text,
A
rather
popular
law.
than techni-
Finally,
meets
this Court
the definition of
word;
cal
legal
comprehensive
or
term
appellate
by
as
court
defined
Black’s
fixed,
having
legal
meaning.
(5th
1983).
ed.
Dictionary
Law
50
jurisdiction
A
having
appeal
court
Perhaps
legal
there is
no fixed
review;
“decision,”
meaning
a court which causes are
of what constitutes a
certiorari,
by appeal,
removable
error or we
than
have been less
consistent
our
and,
reviewing court,
report.
except
A
treatment of
cases where we found
indicated,
emphasis
supplied by
all
in is
author.
Unless otherwise
here-
Supreme Court
United States
initially
Even the
the court of
error after
to the courts of
every case
does not remand
There
error” determination.
made a “no
“Al
analysis:
error
appeals for a harmless
this
any number of cases where
have been
rec
required to review
though
are not
we
analysis in the
performed a harm
Court
claim,
a harmless-error
ords to evaluate
State, 683
In
v.
first instance.
Gauldin
plainly have
sparingly, we
and do so
conduct-
(Tex.Cr.App.1984),
we
v. Has
authority
so.” United States
to do
an issue
analysis
error
ed a harmless
1974,
499, 510, 103 S.Ct.
ting, 461 U.S.
previously
rejected
that had
been
(1983).
Hasting,
In
1981,
We must now determine whether
judicial
meaningless squandering
and a
13,1987,
April
admission of
conversa-
appellate
resources that our over-burdened
error. Rule
tion constituted reversible
re-
can ill afford. When we
system
court
81(b)(2)
Appellate
of the Texas Rules of
for a harmless error
mand a case
that an
provides
Procedure
again by way
to see the case
we are certain
not “re-
in a criminal case need
discretionary
petition for
subsequent
of a
judgment under review
verse the
[if]
petition
require
will
addition-
review. That
beyond
appellate court determines
a rea-
parties,.
review
briefing by
al
the error made no
sonable doubt that
Court,
and atten-
and the time
staff of
pun-
to the conviction or the
contribution
members of this
tion of the individual
ishment.”
Court,
exhausting our limited re-
further
at 184.
Id.
sources.
State, Fullbright
In
*8
remanding
in
problems inherent
The
(Tex.Cr.App.1991),we said:
810
analysis
given suc
for a harm
were
cases
that the trial court
The determination
expression in
v.
and forceful
cinct
Woodfox
by denying appellant’s motion to
erred
408,
State,
(Tex.Cr.App.
412-3
742 S.W.2d
paragraph does
quash the enhancement
P.J.,
1987) (Onion,
dissenting):
case;
our examination of
not conclude
this
I
it ridiculous to remand
find
error
conduct a “harmless
we must now
keep
Appeals,
of
this
cause to the Court
81(b)(2)Tex.
pursuant to Rule
analysis”
orbit,
heavenly appellate
de-
cause in the
R.App.P.
...
judgment, further
finality of the
lay the
resources,
examples of the
the State’s
judicial
cases are but three
exhaust
These
insure,
in all likelihood
money,
conducted
and
this Court has
many cases where
open up the
again
will once
be able
in
first
instance.2
we
analysis
harm
(Tex.Cr.App.1989); Jamail v.
many
right
today.
where we are
[(Tex.Cr.App.
157
1984) ],
Appeals
in
event the
Court of
An example of the time consumed in
not,
certainly
does
will
we
be called
State,
in Jones v.
appellate
appeared
orbit
remaining
to address
grounds
two
535,
(Tex.Cr.App.1986) (On-
720 S.W.2d
review,
disposition
for
of
ion, P.J., dissenting):
analysis
harm
to this remand.
The record discloses that
this offense
This
greater appel
would result
even
28,1980.
occurred on August
The indict-
late
delay
prevented
when
can be
2,
ment was returned on October
1980.
by this Court at this time.
April 26,
Trial commenced on
1982. Af-
conviction,
ter
appeal
State,
given
notice
Abdnor v.
476,
808 S.W.2d
478-9
18,
on June
The
1982.
record reached
(Baird,
J., concurring in
7,
the Court of
on
Appeals
October
1983. part
dissenting
part). Although
15,
May
1985,
On
Appeals
the Court of
Abdnor was remanded to the
Ap
Court
opinion affirming
handed down its
peals
15,1991,
May
on
analysis
harm
conviction.
In connection with the said
See,
performed
until October
1992.
opinion the
reached
record
the Court of
State,
Abdnor
(Tex.
S.W.2d 302
July
Criminal
on
The
1985.
App.
1992).
—Dallas
petition
said
originally
refused on
Remanding
appeals
cases to the courts of
April 30, 1986,
but
motion for
analysis
a harmless error
judicial
is a
rehearing
petition
granted
on
luxury
appellate
that our overburdened
June
1986.
cause was
submitted
system
simply cannot
afford.
Now,
on November
1986.
over six
appeals
ap-
courts of
are asked to resolve
offense,
years
alleged
after the
murder
8,500
proximately
cases
Rath-
year.3
each
returning
is
the cause to the
er
by remanding
than add to that number
appellate
for another
cases, we
address the
harm
should
issue of
round
every
likelihood that another
when
we determine the court of
round will
in this
be had
Court before
erroneously determined
“no er-
there was
sounded,
any gong is
if then.
Typically,
ror.”
we can
harm
conduct a
Perhaps
example
the most extreme
analysis
relatively
short order. There-
the time consumed in
orbit was
fore,
the harm
taxing
is not
when
seen Abdnor v.
if we conducted instead Appeals. mand of this to the cause Court of remanding this cause the Court of Appeals.... believe,
... while I for the reasons above,
stated the Court will tion, System, Report, Texas Judicial Annual State states the number of new cases filed total 8,563. during year Fiscal Year Office Court Administra- the fiscal 1991 was