Bonilla v. Texas

by
The issue this case presented for the Court of Criminal Appeals' review centered on who bears the burden of showing that the trial judge erred in cumulating indecency-with-a-child sentences when some sexual abuse took place before the 1997 Penal Code amendments permitting cumulation of sentences for child sexual offenses. The Court concluded that appellant did not show, either at trial or on appeal, that the jury could not have found him guilty of an offense that occurred after September 1, 1997, the effective date of the cumulation statute. Instead, there was ample evidence to show that appellant began sexually abusing his victim. in 1995 (before the 1997 amendment permitting cumulation became effective) and continued to sexually abuse him until 2002 (at least five years after the 1997 amendment became effective). The Court therefore agreed with the court of appeals that the trial judge “did not err in stacking the sentences” because there was “some evidence” that the offenses occurred after September 1, 1997. View "Bonilla v. Texas" on Justia Law