Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellee was indicted for the murder of her husband nearly 23 years later. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, alleging that the pre-indictment delay violated, inter alia, her rights to due process, due course of law, and a fair trial. The court of appeals held that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment and reversed and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. After review, the court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that there was no evidence in the record that the prosecutorial delay was intended to gain a tactical advantage over appellee or for another improper purpose. The court also held that the 23-year delay did not offend due process and therefore remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. View "State v. Krizan-Wilson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to eighty years' imprisonment. After his conviction was affirmed defendant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus claiming that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at the guilt and punishment phases of his trial. The court held that it could not conclude that defendant satisfied his burden of establishing that counsel's performance was deficient for failing to object to an officer's opinion that defendant looked "arrogant" in his photos; failing to move for a mistrial after the prosecutor asserted in a question that defendant threatened his girlfriend with a gun; failing to file a motion in limine and objecting to the prosecutor impeaching defendant with a drug conviction that arguably was inadmissible; and failing to object to the prosecutor's punishment argument that defendant did not show remorse. The court also could not say that, in the face of all the evidence the jury heard about the murder, it was reasonably probable the jury would have reached a different conclusion had defendant's trial counsel performed in the manner defendant now claimed. Accordingly, the court denied relief. View "Ex parte Green" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession with the intent to deliver cocaine and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Defendant then filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07, in which he contended that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance at trial. The court twice remanded defendant's application and requested that the convicting judge make specific findings and determine if trial counsel was ineffective. The convicting judge filed findings and recommended that relief be denied. The court held that because those findings were supported by the record, the court adopted them and denied relief. View "Ex parte Hatcher" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact and one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the outcry witness's testimony from a pre-trial hearing was admissible. The court held that a pre-trial hearing conducted under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.072 section 2(b)(2) was intended only to determine the reliability of the complainant's out-of-court statement. Therefore, defendant's opportunity for cross-examining the outcry witness at such a hearing was inadequate to allow the admission of the hearing testimony at trial. The court reversed the court of appeals and remanded to that court for a harm analysis. View "Sanchez v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder in the course of committing a robbery, which was a capital offense. On direct appeal, defendant raised 56 points of error. Finding no reversible error, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court. View "Broadnax v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for the state-jail felony of debit card abuse. At issue was whether the terms "use" and "present" in the debit-card-abuse statute were mutually exclusive so that there was no overlap in the meaning of the words. Based on the ordinary meaning of the words as used in the statute, the court concluded that the statutory terms "use" and "present" could overlap in meaning, that a transaction need not be consummated to support a jury finding that a defendant used a debit card, and that the court of appeals erred in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish debt card abuse. Because the court reinstated the trial court's judgment, the court concluded that defendant's petition regarding the reformation of the judgment was improvidently granted. View "Clinton v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder, specifically the intentional murder of two individuals during the same criminal transaction. On direct appeal, defendant raised nine points of error and the court found them to be without merit. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence of death. View "Devoe v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death and this was a direct appeal of the trial court's ruling on a motion filed in the 251st District Court of Randall County. In the course of resolving claims raised in the initial Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071 application, defendant filed a "Motion for Post-Conviction Fingerprint and Blood Testing of the Interior of a Wallet." The court held that defendant's appeal was not permitted. Defendant did not cite, nor has the court found, any constitutional or statutory provision or any rule that would authorize the appeal from the trial court's interlocutory order. View "Holberg v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of indecency with a child. At issue was whether the "grooming" of children for sexual molestation was a legitimate subject of expert testimony. The court rejected defendant's claim that the record failed to show the legitimacy of "grooming" as a subject of expert testimony because the legitimacy of "grooming" as a subject of expert testimony had been established sufficiently to be judicially noticed. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Morris v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of codeine. The court's order granting review in the firearm case, PD-1708-08, was a clerical error and the petition for discretionary review in that case was dismissed as improvidently granted. The rest of the court's opinion dealt with the appeal of the codeine case, PD-1709-08, in which defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction under Health and Safety Code Section 481.115, Possession of Substance in Penalty Group 1. The court held that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to measure the sufficiency of the evidence against the elements of the offense for which defendant was tried. The court also held that defendant was tried for possession of Penalty Group 1 codeine and that the evidence presented at defendant's trial was insufficient to support a conviction for that offense. Therefore, the court reversed the decision and rendered a judgment of acquittal. View "Miles III v. State" on Justia Law