STATE OF TEXAS v. COPELAND, SHIRLEY Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Victoria County (dissenting by judge meyers)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-1802-13 THE STATE OF TEXAS v. SHIRLEY COPELAND, Appellee ON STATE S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS VICTORIA COUNTY M EYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. OPINION The majority concludes that the court of appeals erred in determining that the State procedurally defaulted on its consent argument for not showing the consent was given freely and voluntarily. However, the State did have the burden to show that Danish s consent was free and voluntary and it did not do so. Because the State did procedurally default this argument, I believe that the court of appeals decided the case correctly. As demonstrated by the multiple remands of this case, it is clear the majority is just Copeland dissent - Page 2 trying to find a defibrillator it can hook up to the court of appeals to shock it into finding a heartbeat to support reversal of the trial court s grant of this motion to suppress. It seems to me, however, that the coroner has already put a toe tag on this case and we are just wasting judicial resources by trying to avoid the correct conclusion that the evidence was validly suppressed. Had the roles in this case been reversed, and it was Appellee seeking review of the court of appeals decision, Appellee s issues would have been long ago dispatched to the funeral home to be buried alive. For the reasons stated above, I would affirm the decision of the court of appeals and, therefore, I respectfully dissent. Meyers, J. Filed: October 22, 2014 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.
