(overruling Wilkinson v. State, 899 S.W.2d 20 (Tex.App.— San Antonio 1995, pet. ref d)); Ybarra, 942 S.W.2d at 38; Norton v. State, 918 S.W.2d 25, 28 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996), pet. dism’d improvidently granted, 969 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.Crim.App.1998); Ex parte Knight, 904 S.W.2d 722, 725 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet ref d). Other courts of appeals have continued to follow Tatum and hold that the proper remedy for the unindicted accused is to seek and obtain a ruling on an article 32.01 motion prior to indictment. See, e.g., Steinmetz v. State, 968 S.W.2d 427, 432 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1998, no pet.); Ex parte Barnes, 959 S.W.2d 313, 320 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, pet. granted); Fisk, 958 S.W.2d at 509; State v. Condran, 951 S.W.2d 178, 191-92 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1997) (<HOLDING>), pet. dism’d improvidently granted, 977 S.W.2d
holding that the 1999 version of the sorp like the 1997 version is nonpunitive in both intent and effect holding in part that the 1987 version of article 28061 was unconstitutional recognizing that the appellant improperly premised his arguments on his evidence and his version of the disputed facts despite his purporting to accept the plaintiffappellees version and proceeding with our appellate review by accepting the plaintiffappellees version of the disputed facts and evidence holding unconstitutional a prior version of rc 231521 which provided that the court not the jury would determine the amount of punitive or exemplary damages holding that a statute of limitations defense raised for the first time during trial was waived construing a previous version of federal rule of criminal procedure 12 that was not substantively different from the current version