IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-05-00144-CR
Michael Reed,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 272nd District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 03-00032-CRF-272
DISSENTING Opinion ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Today a majority of the Court denies rehearing to consider whether to shoot “at” something you necessarily have to be outside of it. I dissented on original submission and write this as a supplement to my original dissenting opinion and to the denial of the motion for rehearing.
In my original dissenting opinion, I used an example from music; today’s example comes from the movies. As you may recall, near the end of the movie, Men In Black, Tommy Lee Jones, whose character in the movie was “K,” had his weapon taken away from him by an alien, the bug. The bug swallowed K’s weapon. K then enticed the bug to swallow him too. Moments later, as “J,” played by Will Smith, tries to “negotiate” with the bug, you hear the high pitched sound of the weapon as it energizes. J tells the bug “too late” whereupon K, from inside the bug, fires his weapon. The bug explodes. Men in Black (Amblin Entertainment 1997) (motion picture). In this Hollywood moment lives the graphic example that you can be inside something and still shoot “at” it.
Similarly, if Jonah had a weapon, he probably would have shot “at” the “big fish” that swallowed him too. See Jonah 1:17.
With these additional comments, I respectfully dissent to the denial of the motion for rehearing.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Justices Vance and Justice Reyna voting to deny the motion for rehearing do not join this dissenting opinion)
Dissenting opinion delivered and filed February 13, 2007
Publish with Dissenting Opinion issued December 20, 2006
[CR25]
0;
James Edward Rice seeks to appeal “the revocation of [his] probation.” Because Rice’s community supervision has not been revoked, we will dismiss the appeal.
In July 2003, the trial court sentenced Rice to ten years’ imprisonment and a $1,500 fine for felony DWI, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed him on community supervision for five years. The State filed a motion to revoke Rice’s community supervision in November 2003. After a hearing, the court found that Rice had violated the terms of his community supervision but decided not to revoke his community supervision. Instead, the court modified the terms and conditions of community supervision, requiring Rice to serve not less than six months nor more than one year in a substance abuse treatment facility operated by the Department of Criminal Justice. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 14 (Vernon Supp. 2004).
An order modifying the terms and conditions of community supervision is not reviewable by direct appeal. Basaldua v State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Christopher v. State, 7 S.W.3d 224, 225 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed June 23, 2004
Do not publish
[CR25]