Billy Joe Garza v. State ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                   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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-15-00444-CV

Filed Date: 4/12/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/14/2017