Ex Parte Charles E. Seidel, Jr.

Summary

The Court held that the district court lacked authority to dismiss the felony driving‑while‑intoxicated prosecution "with prejudice"; such dismissal was void, so the State was not required to appeal and may prosecute the defendant later. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and remanded. Justice WOMACK and Justice JOHNSON each filed dissenting opinions disagreeing with the majority’s void‑vs‑voidable analysis and the permissibility of a collateral attack.