recognizing that constitutional issues should not be addressed if the case can be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that constitutional issues should not be addressed if the case can be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds
- recognizing that A[t]he term >due process of law= in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution and the term >due course of law= in our state constitution mean the same thing@
- stating that federal due process and state due course of law mean the same thing
- stating that “due process of law” and “due course of law” mean the same thing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KELLER, J.,
delivered a concurring opinion.
By failing to object, appellant has forfeited any right to have his claim analyzed under the standard of harm for constitutional errors, found in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(a). In addition, there is no due process violation in this case because appellant faded to request relief. Whatley v. State, 946 S.W.2d 73, 75-76 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).