Nilda Iliana Rodriguez v. The State of TexasAppeal from 426th District Court of Bell County (concurring opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-10-00715-CR Nilda Iliana Rodriguez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 65241, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING CONCURRING OPINION The Court requested supplemental briefing on whether the evidence is sufficient to support appellant s conviction. I would not have joined in that request had I been on the panel at that time. Appellant never argued sufficiency of the evidence in her original brief and therefore has not preserved this ground for appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f); Rochelle v. State, 791 S.W.2d 121, 124 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) ( [S]tated policy of the rules [of appellate procedure is] that all matters be raised in the original brief. ). The Court s request for additional briefing did not grant or even impliedly grant a supplemental issue for review ; thus, this Court is not required to address the sufficiency of the evidence, and I believe it should decline to do so in this case. See Garrett v. State, 220 S.W.3d 927, 928 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (concluding that appellate court not required to address issues not raised in original brief, even when court requests supplemental briefing). I concur in the majority s analysis of the issues raised in appellant s original brief and the judgment of the Court.1 __________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field Filed: July 31, 2013 Publish 1 I express no opinion about the sufficiency of the evidence. 2
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.
