Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

The trial court revoked appellant’s deferred-adjudication probation, adjudicated him guilty of aggravated robbery, and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s sentence was imposed in open court on March 7, 2013. On March 20, appellant filed a "Motion for Commutation of Sentence," in which he requested a "time cut" and a new sentence of zero years. On March 25, appellant appealed. On May 17, the trial court entered an order granting a new trial on punishment. On May 20, the State filed a motion to rescind that order and requested that the trial court rule on the State’s motion no later than May 21. The trial court signed an order rescinding its order granting a motion for new trial on punishment on May 22, seventy-six days after the imposition of sentence. In a prior decision, the Court of Criminal Appeals suggested that there was a time limit on the trial court’s power to rescind the granting of a new trial. The Court concluded here that there was no specific time limit on the trial court’s power to do so. Consequently, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Kirk v. Texas" on Justia Law

In the pre-dawn hours of a September day in 2009, the nine-year-old complainant (JG) was walking alone down a long, dark, desolate driveway by herself from her condominium complex to her school bus stop. Appellant approached her from behind, grabbed her around the waist with one arm, covered her mouth with his other hand, and threatened to cut her with a knife if she screamed. Appellant then put JG on the floorboard of his truck and drove her to his apartment. While she was in Appellant’s car, JG reached into her backpack claiming to look for a snack, but she grabbed her mobile phone to seek help. Because it was still dark outside, Appellant saw the light from JG’s phone when she activated it, and he took it from her. He then pried the battery out with a knife. Once at Appellant’s apartment, JG was put into a closet with her hands bound. After eight hours Appellant decided to release JG. He put her back on the floorboard of his truck and drove her to an apartment complex near where she lived. But when she told him that she did not know how to get home from where they were, Appellant took her back to the site of the kidnapping and released her there. JG returned home to an empty house: her mother was not there because she was at the police station. JG was unable to call anyone for help because Appellant still had her mobile phone, and JG and her mother did not have a home phone. JG walked to a neighbor’s house and used their telephone to call her mother. A little while later, her mother and police arrived. The punishment level for aggravated kidnapping is reduced from a first-degree felony to a second-degree felony if the kidnapper "voluntarily releases the victim in a safe place." The court of appeals concluded that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s rejection of Appellant’s mitigating defense of release in a safe place. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to examine the court of appeals' holding, and because the Court agreed with the judgment of the court of appeals, it affirmed. View "Butcher v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Melissa Mercer pled guilty to debit-card abuse and was placed on community supervision for five years. On numerous occasions, the trial court amended Appellant’s conditions of community supervision sua sponte and without a hearing. Appellant signed each order amending the conditions of her community supervision. Later, the trial court held a hearing with Appellant, defense counsel, and the prosecutor present, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced her to two years’ confinement. The judge also ordered her to pay the costs she had failed to pay as conditions of her community supervision, including payment of her outstanding fine, court costs, and reimbursement for costs of her confinement in county jail while she was on community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Appellant stipulated to evidence proffered by the State and pled true to all alleged violations of her conditions of community supervision, including failing to pay her fine, court costs, and reimbursement as ordered as conditions of her community supervision. The issue this case presented for the Court of Criminal Appeals' review was whether a defendant was required to reimburse the county for the cost of her incarceration in county jail as a condition of her community supervision. However, because the Court concluded the court of appeals incorrectly analyzed the relevant issue in this case, it vacated the court of appeals and remanded this case for reconsideration. View "Mercer v. Texas" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Court of Criminal Appeals' review centered on whether a defendant suffers egregious harm from erroneous jury instructions permitting a non-unanimous verdict when the jury faced with two diametrical positions reaches multiple verdicts signifying, in the aggregate, its belief in the credibility of the State’s evidence and its disbelief in the defendant’s evidence. The State’s argued that the court of appeals erred by determining that erroneous jury instructions permitting non-unanimous jury verdicts caused egregious harm to appellant Charles Arrington. The court of appeals' judgment reversed appellant's six convictions, including five convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and one conviction for indecency with a child by contact. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that, by improperly failing to consider all of the evidence that was admitted at trial and by finding dispositive the jury’s inability to reach a verdict on a single count without considering other rational reasons for the lack of a verdict on that single count, the court of appeals erroneously determined that the faulty instructions egregiously harmed appellant. The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded this case for consideration of appellant’s other issues on appeal. View "Arrington v. Texas" on Justia Law