rehearing. A motion for en banc reconsideration was also denied. A petition for discretionary review was filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition was refused. So the arguments undercutting the Smith holding have never been specifically addressed. Perhaps other intermediate courts of appeals will be willing to consider these legal authorities. This assumes these courts of appeals will not simply cite Smith and its reasoning as precedent that should be followed. This is what happened in the Wiggins opinion out of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. IX. The Wiggins Opinion In Wiggins, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals said: We agree with the First Court of Appeals on this issue. Appellant posits that the constitution “absolutely prohibits the assignment of visiting judges when the elected district judge is not absent, disabled, or disqualified,” but neither the relevant language nor its interpretative commentary supports his assertion. Article V, section 7 ensures that the absence, disability, or disqualification of a judge will not operate to adjourn court or prevent the holding of court; but it does not limit the Legislature's ability to enact legislation permitting eligible and qualified judges to be assigned to district courts in other circumstances. 31 Once one intermediate court of appeals rules against a systemic argument, other appellate courts have a convenient authority on which to defeat the same argument. This is what happened in Wiggins. As in Smith, both a motion for rehearing and a motion
Wiggins v. State, 622 S.W.3d at 560. The Wiggins Court cited the Smith case as well as Dean v. Dean for its conclusion.
31
20
