Opinion
NO. 14-18-00568-CR
01-30-2020
EX PARTE DAVID WILLIAMS, Appellant
On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 89988-WR
CONCURRING OPINION
I concur in the court's judgment and in the plurality's conclusion that Ex parte Baltimore, a binding precedent from the Court of Criminal Appeals, mandates affirmance of the trial court's ruling. The plurality pronounces that Ex parte Baltimore was "wrongly decided." Because that determination goes beyond this court's purview, I respectfully decline to join the plurality opinion.
See 616 S.W.2d 205, 206-07 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981).
Ante at 3.
See Ex parte Roldan, 418 S.W.3d 143, 146 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (stating that "[i]t is clearly beyond our purview to decide that the Court of Criminal Appeals 'wrongly decided' a case"); accord Garcia v. State, 246 S.W.3d 121, 142 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. ref'd).
See Ex parte Roldan, 418 S.W.3d at 146 n.2; Garcia, 246 S.W.3d at 142.
Under principles of vertical stare decisis, in criminal cases, Texas intermediate courts of appeals must follow on-point decisions from the Court of Criminal Appeals even if individual members of the intermediate court disagree with the precedent. Rather than adjudge and pronounce high-court precedent "wrongly decided," a better option for those members is to use separate judicial writings to make the case for jurisprudential change. Through concurring opinions, justices can identify deficiencies in precedent, explain why another approach might better serve the interests in play, and respectfully urge the high court to revisit the issue and perhaps abrogate the precedent. This approach keeps the focus on effecting positive change, promotes collegiality within the judiciary, and holds greater promise for furthering the development of the state's jurisprudence.
See State of Texas ex rel. Vance v. Clawson, 465 S.W.2d 164, 168 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971).
See, e.g., Williams v. State, 960 S.W.2d 758, 760-62 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. dism'd) (Taft, J., concurring) (author of majority opinion also filed a concurring opinion in which he pointed out deficiencies in a high-court precedent and respectfully urged the Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider its decision); Shaffer v. State, 769 S.W.2d 945, 947-49 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1988) (Colley, J., concurring) (pointing out deficiencies in a high court precedent and respectfully urging the Court of Criminal to abrogate the prior precedent), rev'd, 769 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989).
/s/ Kem Thompson Frost
Chief Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Bourliot and Poissant. (Bourliot, J., plurality) (Poissant, J., concurring).
Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).