In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-15-00444-CV
________________________
BILLY JOE GARZA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 106th District Court
Garza County, Texas
Trial Court No. 88-1584; Honorable Carter T. Schildknecht, Presiding
April 12, 2017
ORDER
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
On December 28, 2016, this court affirmed the order of the trial court denying the
post-conviction motion of Appellant, Billy Joe Garza, for exemption from sex-offender
registration. See Garza v. State, No. 07-15-00444-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13757
(Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 28, 2016, no pet. h.). Thereafter, Appellant’s motion for
rehearing was denied without written order. See Garza v. State, No. 07-15-00444-CV,
2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 1663 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 27, 2017, no pet. h.). Pending
before this court is Appellant’s Motion for Requesting Extension of Time to File Motion
for En Banc Reconsideration, wherein he requests additional time to research and
prepare “legal work” asking this court to reconsider, en banc, its previous decisions. We
deny that motion.
In Texas, a motion for en banc reconsideration of an order or opinion issued by
an intermediate appellate court is a request to have all the members of the court
participate in the decision, rather than the originally assigned three-judge panel. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 41.2. While the Seventh Court of Appeals is normally a four-judge court,
currently only three positions are filled.
Here, the original opinion and order denying rehearing were decided by a panel
consisting of Chief Justice Quinn and Associate Justices Campbell and Pirtle. Because
Justices Quinn, Campbell, and Pirtle comprise the entire current body of the court,
Appellant’s request for en banc reconsideration would be moot. Because an en banc
reconsideration would be moot, we conclude Appellant’s motion for extension of time is
also moot.
It is so ordered.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Campbell, J., concurring.
2