in Re: Craig Watkins ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR–82,265–01 & WR–82,265–02 IN RE TYRONE ALLEN, Relator ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS TO THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS CAUSE NOS. 05-14-01167-CV AND 05-14-01168-CV FROM DALLAS COUNTY M EYERS, J., filed a concurring opinion. CONCURRING OPINION I agree with the majority’s analysis of the mandamus issue in this case. I write separately to address the dissenting opinions. Judge Alcala’s position on mootness is incorrect. Her solution would be similar to saying that if a judge made a pretrial ruling on a suppression hearing and there was a new judge at the trial, then the ruling in the pretrial hearing would be moot. This is simply not the case. A new judge at trial does not render moot the ruling made by another judge in a pretrial hearing. Allen concurrence–Page 2 Additionally, while I agree with Judge Newell that this is a punishment issue, it is no different than conducting a pretrial determination of whether the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the offense or whether the victim of the offense was below the age of six. Both of these are sentencing issues that would determine whether a defendant would be eligible for the death penalty, and both are properly conducted prior to the beginning of the trial. With the foregoing comments, I join the majority. Filed: May 13, 2015 Publish