# State Ex Rel. Holmes v. Denson

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 27, 1984 · 671 S.W.2d 896

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9760051

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Texas, Ex Rel., John B. HOLMES, District Attorney, Applicant, v. Honorable Woody R. DENSON, Judge, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 27, 1984
- **Citations:** 671 S.W.2d 896
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Clinton
- **Judges:** Campbell, Clinton
- **Cited by:** 96 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/9760051

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a court with jurisdiction has the power to determine “all essential questions” and “to do any and all things with reference thereto” as authorized by the Constitution, statutes, or established principles of law
- explaining that even if trial court dismissed indictments “without statutory authority,” the only manner in which the trial court might reobtain jurisdiction would be the return of new grand jury indictments

## Opinion text

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
Patently, the majority is incorrect in stating that:
“mandamus is appropriate if a judge acts beyond his statutory authority. White v. Reiter, 640 S.W.2d 586 (1982). * * * " 1
There is no statutory basis for a trial judge to act in many particulars generally accepted, such as granting immunity, for example; yet, I doubt any member of the Court would question the inherent power — the jurisdiction of a trial court — to do so. Being both incorrect 2 and unnecessary to the reasoning of the Court, this statement should be eliminated from the opinion.
As to the ultimate relief issued in this case, I agree that once the trial court ordered the indictment dismissed, the court simultaneously lost jurisdiction of the cause and this Court cannot breathe life back into it anymore than the trial court could by “reinstating” the expired cause.
As to the “with prejudice” part of the dismissal, I would hold the State has another remedy adequate to test its validity: The State could simply refile the cases against the defendants and litigate the appropriateness of that action at that time.
Just today in Cause No. 69,294, styled Turner v. McDonald, we hand down an opinion which rejects an argument advanced by the Respondent and observe that the fact that justiciable issues may be raised in the proceeding we order, is no reason to prevent that proceeding. (Slip op. at 7, n. 9.)
If this Court intends to get into the mandamus/prohibition business full time — (and all recent indications are that it is) — we should proceed with extraordinary caution, assuring that settled principles of extraordinary remedy law are faithfully applied and that our own opinions do not conflict, either internally or one with another.
I concur with the denial of the writ of mandamus as to reinstatement of the causes. I further concur that the State is free to refile the cases; I, however, do not agree that the State’s seeking, or this Court’s granting, a writ of mandamus to that end, is necessary. Most of all I regret the damage done to legal principles in the majority’s doing to such an end.
. All emphasis is added by the writer of this opinion unless otherwise indicated.
. As the author of White v. Reiter, supra, I can categorically deny that it can under any interpretation be read to support this statement for which the majority cites it.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9760051. Public record. Not legal advice.