NUMBER 13-20-00176-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
EX PARTE A.G.
On appeal from the 107th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva
Concurring Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
Although I agree with the majority’s disposition of this appeal and their decision not
to address A.G.’s second issue, I write separately to stress that an inmate’s constitutional
right to access the courts cannot be abridged merely because of his status as an inmate.
In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163, 165 (Tex. 2003) (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,
523 (1984)). An inmate does not have an absolute right to appear in person in every court
proceeding because the inmate’s right to access the courts must be weighed against
penological interests. Id. (citations omitted). But where an inmate requests to appear by
an effective alternative means, such as by telephone, those penological interests are no
longer implicated. In re A.W., 302 S.W.3d 925, 930 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).
Courts should strive to ensure that all parties can exercise this fundamental right up to its
constitutional limit.
GINA M. BENAVIDES
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
24th day of June, 2021.
2