Appellate practitioners will want to take note of the Amarillo Court of Appeals’ opinion in In re Z.A.S. In this case, the Attorney General, as Appellee, filed an "Agreed Motion for Reversal and Remand and for Immediate Issuance of Mandate." After noting that the motion was technically only an unopposed motion and not an agreed motion due to the fact that it was signed only by counsel for the appellee, the court went on to conclude that it could not grant the requested relief because the appellate rules do not permit it.
The motion sought reversal, remand, and a hearing on the merits. The court of appeals held that this requested form of relief is not encompassed within Appellate Rule 42.1(a)(2)’s list of dispositions. Evidently, the court reads Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A) language of "render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement" as only permitting affirmance or reversal, but not remand. Thus, assuming that the parties reach an agreement that some hearing or trial was improperly conducted, it appears that this decision would not allow court of appeals to remand to the trial court to fix that error merely upon the agreement of the parties. In support of its result, the court cites to the notes and comments to Rule 42.1.
The court’s opinion may be found at this link.