Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant, the property manager of the Galleria Shopping Mall in Houston, was charged with unauthorized discharge of industrial waste after a pressure-washing contractor allegedly discharged contaminated water while cleaning the Galleria Mall's underground parking garages. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. The trial judge concluded that the two searches were improper under the Fourth Amendment because both the owner of the pressure washing company, who worked with police on investigating competing pressure-washing companies, and the law enforcement officer were trespassers upon the property at the time they entered, searched, and seized evidence from the Galleria premises. The State appealed and the court of appeals reversed. The court granted defendant's petition for discretionary review and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Jones. View "State v. Bell" on Justia Law

In this felony prosecution for possession of ecstasy, the State appealed from the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence that defendant contended was obtained as a result of an illegal traffic stop. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that defendant's initial detention was illegal and that the taint emanating from the initial illegality was not attenuated by the fact that, immediately after the initial stop, defendant was found to have an outstanding arrest warrant that might have given rise to a valid search incident to arrest. The court of appeals adopted an approach that would effectively presume purposeful and/or flagrant police misconduct from the fact of the primary illegality alone rather than assessing the character of that illegality, and of any subsequent police conduct, to determine whether it indicated they they actually behaved purposefully or flagrantly in the particular case. Thus, the court held that the court of appeals erred to rely upon this de facto presumption to affirm the trial court's ruling on defendant's motion to suppress. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "State v. Mazuca" on Justia Law

Applicant sought relief from his 55-year sentence for aggravated robbery and this was applicant's first subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus. Applicant claimed that a new legal basis that was previously unavailable when he filed his first habeas application entitled him to consideration of, and relief, on his due-process false-testimony claim. Although the court found that applicant was not procedurally barred from raising his claim, the court concluded that he failed to establish a due-process violation by the State's unknowing use of false testimony at his trial. Accordingly, the court denied relief. View "Ex Parte Chavez" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of the capital murder of the thirteen-month-old daughter of his girlfriend. On direct appeal, the court reviewed defendant's 20 points of error and found them to be without merit, affirming the judgment. The court noted that defendant challenged neither the sufficiency of the evidence to support the guilty verdict nor the determination that he was not mentally retarded. Because defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the future-dangerousness special issue, the court set out the facts of the crime and the relevant punishment evidence. View "Milam v. State" on Justia Law

On the court's own motion, the court issued this opinion in the place of the court's October 6, 2010 opinion. This opinion addressed the State's petition for discretionary review challenging the decision by the court of appeals on the appeal filed by defendant. Having withdrawn the court's former opinion, the court overruled the State's motion for rehearing, overruled defendant's pro se motion for rehearing, and dismissed defendant's attorney's motion for rehearing as untimely filed. The court of appeals found harmful error in the phrasing of the jury instructions, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial. The court agreed with the court of appeals that the instructions were erroneous, albeit for a different reason, but concluded that the error was harmless and therefore, reversed the judgment. View "Sanchez v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus following the trial court's imposition of deferred-adjudication community supervision, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to properly advise defendant of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea. Because the court of appeals did not resolve defendant's Padilla v. Kentucky clear-advice issue, and because that issue was necessary to final disposition of his appeal, the court held that the court of appeals erred in failing to address it. The court remanded the case with instructions to obtain further findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court. View "Martinez v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in removing a juror and that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to question the dismissed juror or move for a mistrial after the dismissal. The court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The state subsequently filed a petition for discretionary review. The court concluded that the court of appeals correctly held that the juror was not "disabled" as defined in Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 33.011 and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Scales v. State" on Justia Law

The state sought reversal of the judgment of the court of appeals, which held that a blood-draw search warrant to be executed in a designated county could not be issued by a statutory county court judge of another county. The court held that the court of of appeals did not err in determining that a statutory county court judge in Montgomery County lacked authority to issue a search warrant for defendant's blood in Harris County. Statutory county court judges lacked the authority to issue a search warrant to be executed outside of their own county and therefore, the judgment was affirmed. View "Sanchez v. State" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant of capital murder and sentenced him to life in prison with no possibility of parole. On appeal, defendant claimed he was denied due process at his trial. At issue was whether defendant's objections at trial put the court on notice of his due-process, fair-trial complaint. The court held that the court of appeals used the correct standard and did not err in failing to consider the court's holding in Zillender v. State. Contrary to defendant's argument, the court's holding in Zillender did not change the outcome of his appeal where nothing in the record indicated that the trial court or prosecutor knew that defendant was making a due-process claim. Therefore, defendant never put the court on notice of his due-process, fair-trial complaint, and the issue was forfeited. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Clark, III v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated and the trial judge subsequently granted her motion to suppress, concluding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make his traffic stop. The state appealed that ruling and requested written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based upon the trial judge's written factual findings, the court of appeals inferred that the judge must have believed the officer's testimony. The court granted defendant's petition to review whether the court of appeals deferred sufficiently to the trial court's factual findings. The court agreed with defendant that reviewing courts should not make implied findings of fact and credibility determinations that were contrary to the trial judge's ultimate ruling. But because the written findings in this case were ambiguous and there was no credibility determination, the court remanded the case to the court of appeals with instructions to abate the case to the trial judge for supplemental findings. View "State v. Mendoza" on Justia Law