Reconsideration en banc denied.
DISSENTING OPINION ON DENIAL OF EN BANC RECONSIDERATION
Appellant has moved for en banc reconsideration, asking the en banc court to resolve whether the amendments to Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.15(a) are retroactive, which is the opinion of the panel majority, or this courts precedence in Hernandez-Faced v. State, 661 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, pet. filed), which reached the opposite conclusion. 1
On a 5–4 vote, the court has overruled the motion.
The court of criminal appeals should resolve this Boykin statutory-construction issue. Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The legislature clearly intended the amendments to be retroactive, and the majority has both misconstrued the statute and not followed the decision of the court of criminal appeals in Boykin. See Tex. R. App. P. 66.3(c), (d) (listing reasons for court of criminal appeals to grant review). FOOTNOTES
1
. One member of the Hernandez-Faced panel agrees that the court should grant en banc reconsideration.
En banc court consisting of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise, Jewell, Bourliot, Zimmerer, Spain, Hassan, Poissant, and Wilson. Justice Spain authored the Dissenting Opinion on Denial of En Banc Reconsideration, which was joined by Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.