INMAN, CALLIE RENEE v. the State of Texas

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. PD-0251-22

CALLIE RENEE INMAN, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
GALVESTON COUNTY

Per curiam. NEWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion in which HERVEY,
RICHARDSON, and MCCLURE, JJ., joined. KEEL, J., filed a dissenting opinion in
which KELLER, P.J., YEARY, and SLAUGHTER, JJ., joined.

O P I N I O N1

Appellant, Callie Renee Inman, was indicted for intoxication manslaughter and

manslaughter. She pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent

homicide, and the State dismissed the intoxication manslaughter count. The trial judge

1
Originally appealed to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to the
Thirteenth Court of Appeals by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization
efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001.
Inman–2

placed her on deferred-adjudication community supervision for five years. The State

subsequently filed several motions to adjudicate. After Appellant was arrested, a hearing

was held. The trial court revoked her community supervision and adjudicated her guilty

plea based on multiple violations of the conditions of her supervision.

On direct appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that the admission of

certain evidence at her adjudication hearing violated the Confrontation Clause of the

Sixth Amendment. The court of appeals disagreed in an unpublished opinion. It cited law

from the Fourteenth District Court of Appeals (the original court for this filing), holding

the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause does not apply during post-conviction

proceedings. Inman v. State, No. 13-20-00349-CR, 2022 WL 709832, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg Mar. 10, 2022) (mem. op, not designated for publication)

(quoting Trevino v. State, 218 S.W.3d 234, 239 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007,

no pet.)). Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review, and we granted review of the

Confrontation Clause issue. However, after considering the parties’ briefs and the record,

we conclude that our decision to grant review was improvident. We therefore dismiss

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review as improvidently granted.

Delivered: May 17, 2023

Do Not Publish