Opinion issued August 14, 2025

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00721-CR ——————————— JOSE ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1764015

OPINION CONCURRING IN DENIAL OF REHEARING Objecting to footnote 10 of the opinion, Appellant Jose Alberto Rodriguez asks whether the Court now wants record citations to include line numbers. No, the Court does not want citations to include line numbers. If line numbers have a fan club among Texas appellate readers, the club has very few members.

Rodriguez rightly notes that the “standard, longstanding practice in Texas appellate courts, including this Court, does not require line-number citations.” But he wrongly reads footnote 10 as requiring line numbers, and based on that premise, he says that we “misstated the briefing requirements of Rule 38.1(i) to require line- number citations when no such requirement exists in the rule, authoritative case law from the Court of Criminal Appeals, or longstanding appellate practice.”

Footnote 10 did not require line numbers. Its reference to line numbers was merely an observation (made in the context of stating that we had “done our best” to follow the arguments, and made in tandem with a list of about two dozen questions that we took the brief to assail as improper impeachment inquiries).1 The footnote explained the setting in which we sought to identify which questions were being assailed. It did not find the brief deficient for lacking line numbers.

To sum up, briefs generally need not list line numbers. If anything, briefs should avoid them as unhelpful and unwelcome.

David Gunn Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Guiney. Justice Gunn, joined by Chief Justice Adams, concurring.

Do Not Publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

The cross-examination spanned about 20 pages and contained about 150 questions. Only about six of those questions drew objections from Rodriguez at trial. On appeal, he found fault with the entirety of the cross but did not isolate specific questions as objectionable.