IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. PD-0861-20
THE STATE OF TEXAS
v.
JASON DEAN HUNTER, Appellee
ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
COMAL COUNTY
RICHARDSON, J., filed a concurring opinion.
CONCURRING OPINION
I concur in this Court’s decision to deny review in this case. To date, thirteen
judges have reviewed this case, eleven have concluded that the conduct in question does
not constitute a crime under Texas law, and only one has written a dissenting opinion
trying to explain why the overwhelming number of judges in this case got it wrong. The
unanimous decision written by former Chief Justice Rose affirming the trial court’s
decision was a thorough and detailed analysis of the difficult legal issues presented in this
2
case. Presiding Judge Keller’s concurring opinion in this Court’s decision to deny review
also contains a detailed analysis addressing the legal issues presented. The dissent relies
heavily on this Court’s opinion in Baumgart to justify granting review in this case. It is
important to note that as this case has progressed through the courts, not a single party or
judge has mentioned Baumgart. The great weight of the dissent’s argument to justify
granting review relies on Baumgart; however, the State’s silence on Baumgart is
deafening. Indeed, the first time Baumgart is raised on behalf of the State’s plea to grant
review is in the dissenting opinion; none of the parties have ever mentioned it.
The judges on this Court author opinions – majority, concurring, and dissenting
opinions – that have long-term effects on the criminal justice system in our State. This
Court makes hard decisions on a regular basis. Last month, we denied relief in a case that
may result in a person’s execution and also granted actual innocence relief to a person
wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for years. Hard decisions come in many forms, but
we are required to follow the law as written. All of our decisions should reflect our
judicial oath to act impartially and to follow the law. We strive to do that, even though
the task may be difficult, and we may be personally conflicted about the outcome.
I agree with Presiding Judge Keller when she states the Court of Appeals’
resolution was correct and is so obvious that we need not grant review. Because the law
on this issue is clear, I join Presiding Judge Keller’s opinion explaining why review is not
warranted.
FILED: JUNE 16, 2021
PUBLISH