Christopher Lee Brooks v. the State of Texas

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion and Memorandum Concurring Opinion filed November 23, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00099-CR

CHRISTOPHER LEE BROOKS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 421st District Court Caldwell County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19-065

MEMORANDUM CONCURRING OPINION I concur in the judgment and join the opinion, but I write separately to note my concern of the potential overuse of nonprecedential authority. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b), (c). Just because we can cite opinions and memorandum opinions in criminal appeals “not designated for publication” does not mean we should. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.7(a).

The civil appellate bar raised concerns in the 1980s and 1990s to nonprecedential unpublished opinions, which led to current Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.2 making precedential all civil opinions issued by the courts of appeals on or after January 1, 2003. Reasonable people can question why this change only applied in civil appeals. But as the courts of appeals have no general appellate rulemaking authority as do the supreme court and court of criminal appeals, the decision to treat civil and criminal appeals differently is out of the hands of the intermediate appellate judiciary.

What is within our control is how often we cite these nonprecedential opinions. When we do cite them, we must be cautious so that we do not unintentionally extend the law on issues that are supposed to be “settled.” See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Those opinions are presumably nonprecedential for a reason.

Applying the law to the facts of this case, I do not question that the issues are settled. I therefore concur in the judgment and join the opinion.

/s/ Charles A. Spain

Justice Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).