Rodriguez v. State , 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 1216 ( 2002 )

BEN Z. GRANT, Justice,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision that this Court has no jurisdiction to address Alejandro Rodriguez’s contention that the statute under which he is required to register as a sex offender is unconstitutional.

Rodriguez is bound by the terms of the judgment of the trial court to register as a sex offender.

While it is true this judicially mandated requirement will not begin until his release from prison, the finality of this judgment is not in question. It is true Rodriguez could die or the world could come to an end before this requirement must be met, but final judgments in both civil and criminal cases do not wait and should not wait until full execution of the judgment is completed before being allowed to complain. Under the doctrine of ripeness, this judgment is ripe and final for all purposes. There is a fundamental importance in achieving finality of judgment and in eliminating endless litigation. This matter can be addressed now instead of waiting to address it on a later appeal.

The writer Charles Dickens observed that the High Court of the Chancery bar in England “mistily engaged in one of the ten thousand stages of an endless • cause, tripping one another up on slippery precedents, groping knee-deep in technicalities, running their goat-hair and horse-hair warded heads against walls of words, and making a pretense of equity with serious faces....”⁴

May we not be accused of such useless activity. Our judiciary can directly address issues that are ripe and fully before us, or we can get our exercise by sidestepping issues, searching for delays, using procedural excuses to vault over the issues on their merits, and jumping at opportunities to avoid ruling on matters entitled to a ruling. This case is an example of such exercises in futility. I see no reason why this Court cannot address the issue raised on appeal.

4 . M. Frances McNamara, 2,000 Famous Legal Quotations 71-72 (1967).