The Marvin™ Award is a special award, given to one of our State's appellate courts, and can be awarded for something especially good, or especially bad, or something in between. Awards are given on the nomination of one of our commentators, but require the agreement of 2/3 of the commentators.

The Marvin™ Award is a special award, given to one of our State's appellate courts, and can be awarded for something especially good, or especially bad, or something in between. Awards are given on the nomination of one of our commentators, but require the agreement of 2/3 of the commentators.
Recipients:

3. (see G&S, Vol. 16, No. 8; 03/03/08) - Given to the Court of Criminal Appeals (Kudos!) for trying to chastising the Dallas (5th) Court of Appeals for its unpublished opinion in Taylor v. State, No. 05-06-01076-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas Sept. 18, 2007).

The trial court in Taylor signed separate orders - one appointing counsel to represent the defendant on appeal, and one granting a motion for new trial. Once the case reached the Dallas Court of Appeals, the State asked the Court to abate the case and remand it to the trial court to determine which of the orders was mistakenly entered, the Court of Appeals simply stuck its head in the sand and dismissed the case. It took a summary PDR grant to straighted things out.

Kudos to the CCA for straightening this out, while the Fifth Court gets sent to its room for a time out. Bad Court! No donuts!

2. (see G&S, Vol. 13, No. 44; 11/21/05) - Given to the Ft. Worth (2nd) Court of Appeals for its decision in Bray v. State (No. 02-04-0148; 11/10/05)

Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. The Court, however, recognized that the trial court, by including in the judgment a requirement that Appellant pay $1,150 for attorney's fees "as a term of parole," had included an illegal "condition of judgment." However, rather than remand the case to the trial court for appointment of a new attorney, who could then "raise the illegality of the condition . . .," the Court of Appeals decided to simply reform the judgment by striking the offense term.

We salute the Second Court for its far sighted opinion, short-cutting the administrative process, avoiding "appellate orbit," and recognizing the importance of judicial economy. In about eight extra pages of print (a "normal" Anders opinion is two pages or less), this Court accomplished what would take other appellate courts literally years to do, and has avoided multiple processes and thousands of dollars in wasted judicial resources. Thus, we award our second Marvin™ award winner to the Ft. Worth Court of Appeals for this decision.

1. (see G&S, Vol. 13, No. 30; 08/08/05) - Given to the Waco (10th) Court of Appeals.

They did have the good judgment to cite at length the very excellent Waddell v. State, 918 S.W.2d 91 (Tex.App. - Austin 1996, no pet.)(see G&S, Vol. 4, No. 10; 03/24/96) in their Jones opinion (No. 10-04-0044-CR). However, looking at this week's output as a mini-snapshot of what this court is all about, they gave us one opinion where there was no evidence in the record to support the claims raised, two additional opinions in misdemeanor cases that no one is certain to agree with, and two dissents. Judge Gray's dissent in Steels (No. 10-04-0107-CR) rivals Judge White's famous dissent in Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996)(see G&S, Vol. 4, No. 3; 02/08/1996), as a pithy, yet somewhat entertaining, appraisal of his colleagues' handiwork. And who can forget what is still my favorite case of the past year, Watson v. State (No. 10-03-0216-CR), where two justices made it very clear that the only appropriate way for a woman to respond to an exposed and aroused stranger in her kitchen is to offer him doughnuts and a latte. I realize that I now read this court's opinions with great anticipation, wondering what amazing act of incomprehensible law-fu, or expression of undisguised contempt for same, will be coming out of that court this week. This is the judicial version of Sartre's "No Exit."