BRYAN WILLIAM COLUMBUS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2026)

CONCURRING OPINION

One of Appellant's grounds was raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing en banc and was not addressed by the court of appeals. The Court does not say today that it “cannot” consider that ground. Rather, the Court merely declines to consider that ground. That declination rests firmly on this Court's general prudential practice of not addressing issues that were not resolved by the court of appeals.¹ We deviate from that general rule only in exceptional situations.² “We are a discretionary review court. It is not our practice to conduct an ‘appeal de novo’ and review appellate issues from scratch.”³ With these comments, I join the Court's opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1.   State v. Young, — S.W.3d —, No. PD-0526-25, 2026 WL 1374060, *8-9 (Tex. Crim. App. May 14, 2026) (discussing Supreme Court's prudential rule and concluding that it “meshes comfortably with this Court's own practice”).

2.   Id. at *6, 8.

3.   Id. at *10; see also State v. Barber, — S.W.3d —, No. PD-0510-25, 2026 WL 1073627, *2 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. April 16, 2026).

PARKER, J., filed a concurring opinion.