Clifton Randolph v. State

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-02-00360-CR

Â Â Â Â Â CLIFTON RANDOLPH,

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Appellant

Â Â Â Â Â v.

Â Â Â Â Â THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 2002-520-C

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

CONCURRING OPINION

Â Â Â Â Â Â The analysis of issue one is generally unnecessary. I do not agree with the majorityâs application of law, in particular, Graff, or other statements leading to its conclusion that the trial court erred in admitting a photograph into evidence.

Â Â Â Â Â Â But fortunately, the majorityâs error has no effect on the Courtâs judgment because it determines the trial court error was harmless. I agree that if there was error, a conclusion the majority reached and with which I disagree, it was certainly harmless.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Therefore, I concur in the judgment only.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â TOM GRAY

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Chief Justice

Concurring opinion delivered and filed May 12, 2004

Do not publish

ld be an attack on the manner in which the amount of cost assessed was determined and made part of the criminal judgment. Second, the complaint could be regarding the manner in which an inmateÂs account was garnished for the cost as assessed in the inmateÂs criminal judgment.Â It appeared to me that this issue would determine the characterization of these proceedings as criminal or civil, as well as determine the forms of appellate review that might be available.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Because a majority of the Tenth Court of Appeals went another direction, this issue was never joined by the parties in this proceeding, or in any of the prior proceedings, and neither briefed nor decided by the court of appeals.Â See In re Keeling, 227 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. App.ÂWaco 2007, orig. proceeding).

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Based upon what we have as a record in this proceeding, we are, at this time, unable to properly analyze the complaint and, thus, unable to determine the true nature of the proceeding as either criminal or civil; and thus we are currently unable to properly determine what, if any, remedy might be available for judicial review.Â Because of these inabilities, the disposition of this proceeding is premature, and I respectfully dissent from the dismissal of this proceeding for want of jurisdiction of an appeal of a criminal proceeding.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â TOM GRAY

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Chief Justice

Dissenting opinion delivered and filed March 12, 2008

Publish

Clifton Randolph v. State

Related Cases