So in Ex parte Doan today, the CCA wrote a lengthy, elaborate opinion explaining how a probation revocation hearing is not "administrative" in nature. But I don't understand how that then leaped into "and by the way, the Brazos County Attorney and the Travis County Attorney are the same party for collateral estoppel." The previous CE case, Brabson, didn't decide that the DA and DPS were two separate parties because one case was an administrative hearing, it decided they were two separate parties because neither had the authority to represent the interests of the other. I don't understand how whether one proceeding was administrative came into the consideration at all.

Anyone else make any better sense of this opinion than I did?


Edited to add: A coworker has brought up the question of what other consequences might come out of revocation hearings being considered "criminal proceedings" rather than "administrative." Just a few months ago in Leonard (the polygraph case), the CCA talked extensively about how revocation cases are administrative and some of the rules are applied differently than in a criminal case. How are these cases affected now by Doan?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Andrea W,

Did they grant rehearing in Leonard?

Yep.