# Pena v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 26, 2006 · 191 S.W.3d 133

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630529

## Case

- **Full name:** Jose PENA, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 26, 2006
- **Citations:** 191 S.W.3d 133; 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 832; 2006 WL 1084004
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Womack
- **Judges:** Cochran, Hervey, Holcomb, Johnson, Keasler, Keller, Meyers, Price, Womack
- **Cited by:** 160 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630529

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding appellate courts are free to review "unassigned error," which is error that is preserved by proper objection or complaint in the trial court, but not raised on appeal
- explaining that the Supreme Court and state courts have recognized “the desirability of avoiding the adjudication of constitutional issues when at all possible”
- explaining that Courts should avoid resolving constitutional issues in cases where adjudication of those issues can be avoided
- holding that courts should not address constitutional complaints unless necessary for disposition of the case
- discussing need to avoid “adjudication of constitutional issues when at all possible”

## Opinion text

WOMACK, J.,
filed a concurring
opinion.
Because I agree with the principle that appellate courts should give the parties notice of, and an opportunity to brief, issues that no party has raised on appeal, * I join the judgment of the Court.
I also agree with the principle that courts should avoid the decision of constitutional issues that are not necessary to the resolution of cases. But, because I do not agree with the Court’s discussion of the relationship of that principle to the former principle (ante at Part II), I do not join the opinion of the Court.
See Montanez v. State, — S.W.3d —, —, 2006 WL 1083917 (Tex. Cr.App., PD-894-04, decided today) (Womack, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630529. Public record. Not legal advice.