THE STATE OF TEXAS v. SOUTCHAY SANAVONGXAY, Appellee (Dissenting)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD 1809 10 THE STATE OF TEXAS v. SOUTCHAY SANAVONGXAY, Appellee ON STATE S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS TARRANT COUNTY M EYERS, J., filed an opinion dissenting to the denial of the State s motion for rehearing. OPINION I would grant the State s motion for rehearing because I agree that an oral ruling, when it is clear and on the record, should be considered sufficient to allow the State to appeal. The trial court s refusal to enter a written order supporting an oral ruling interferes with the State s right to appeal under Code of Criminal Procedure article 44.01(a). The point of article 44.01(a)(5) is to allow the State to appeal a trial court s Sanavongxay Page 2 decision to grant a motion to suppress, and the article does not require that an appealable order be in writing. Here, it is undeniable from the record that the trial court ruled to exclude the State s DNA evidence. I would grant the State s motion for rehearing and expand our holding in State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) to include such rulings. Meyers, J. Filed: May 2, 2012 Publish
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
