# Ex Parte Mitchell

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 19, 1997 · 977 S.W.2d 575

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684863

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Andrew Lee MITCHELL, Applicant
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 19, 1997
- **Citations:** 977 S.W.2d 575; 1997 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92; 1997 WL 716683
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Baird
- **Judges:** Mansfield, Meyers, Price, Baird, Keller, Davis, Overstreet
- **Cited by:** 110 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Criticized by John Hamilton Leib, Jr. v. State (2002).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684863

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that double-jeopardy provisions from United States Constitution and Texas Constitution “provide substantially identical protections”
- holding that the proper remedy after a finding of prosecutorial misconduct is a reversal of conviction and remand for new trial
- noting the Court’s long-standing precedent holding that the double-jeopardy provisions of both constitutions provide “substantially identical protections”

## Opinion text

BAIRD, Judge,
dissenting.
Our summary denial of applicant’s motion for rehearing wholly ignores the fact that our opinion on original submission failed to address four grounds for review which we agreed to consider.
On original submission, the majority stated we granted only two grounds for review. Ex Parte Mitchell, 977 S.W.2d 575, 576 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). And the concurring opinion states we granted review on only grounds one and two. Id., at 581 , n. 1 & 2 (Meyers, J., concurring). However, the records of the clerk of this Court indicate applicant’s petition for discretionary review which raised six grounds for review was granted without limitation on January 29, 1997. The case “shuck” indicates that all grounds for review were granted. Additionally, the parties briefed all six grounds for review.
When a motion for rehearing informs us that we failed to resolve grounds for review that we agreed to consider, we should not dismiss the motion. Instead, we should either address those grounds, explain why they need not be addressed, or dismiss them as improvidently granted.
Because the majority fails to do so, I dissent to the denial of appellant’s motion for rehearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684863. Public record. Not legal advice.