Opinion
No. 10-05-00178-CR
Opinion delivered and filed June 14, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal fromthe 371st District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, Trial Court No. 0871842D. Affirmed.
Before Cheif Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and, Justice REYNA (Justice VANCE concurring with note)
"(Justice Vance concurs with a note: This case demonstrates the need for more guidance from the Court of Criminal Appeals about when, and under what circumstances, it is appropriate or necessary to imply a ruling under Rule 33.1(a)(2)(A). TEX. R APP. P. 33.1(a)(2)(A); see Montanez v. State, 2006 WL 1083917 at *3 (Tex.Crim.App. April 26, 2006) (court of appeals correctly found that trial judge implicitly overruled Montanez's motion to suppress). May we imply a ruling when the circumstances allow it, to get to the merits of an issue? Should we imply a ruling when, as here, there was a pretrial motion on the issue before us, the court proceeded to trial and specifically told Rowland that he had the right to appeal, the judge signed an order appointing counsel for the appeal and giving Rowland a free record, and the merits of the issue have been fully briefed and argued by both the defendant and the State? What are the circumstances under which we MUST imply a ruling? With these comments, I concur in the judgment.)"
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rowland appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a) (Vernon 2003). We affirm. In Rowland's one issue, he contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant Rowland's motion to dismiss for want of a speedy trial. Rowland filed his Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Failure to Give Defendant a Speedy Trial in June 2004. The trial court did not rule on the motion. We have an independent duty to determine if the issue raised on appeal has been preserved by the complaining party in the trial court. Jones v. State, 942 S.W.2d 1, 2 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Rowland waived his speedy-trial motion. We overrule Rowland's issue. Having overruled Rowland's sole issue, we affirm.
We note that the State's Brief refers to the failure to obtain a ruling but does not make that failure a centerpiece of the State's argument. We must, nevertheless, address it under the general doctrine of judicial restraint.