Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

The appellant was charged with assault causing bodily injury. The information did not specify any relationship between the appellant and the complainant, and the plea paperwork only listed the offense as "assault bodily injury." The appellant pled "no contest" to the charge. During the plea hearing, the trial court included a family-violence finding in the deferred adjudication order, despite the lack of evidence or admissions regarding the nature of the relationship between the appellant and the complainant.The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's inclusion of the family-violence finding. The appellate court agreed that an order of deferred adjudication is not a "judgment" and thus Article 42.013 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply. However, it held that the trial court had discretion to enter the family-violence finding based on Articles 42A.104(a) and 42A.504(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which allow the imposition of reasonable conditions of community supervision and fines for offenses involving family violence.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case and found that there was no admissible evidence to support the family-violence finding. The court noted that the appellant's plea to ordinary assault bodily injury did not include any allegations of a family or dating relationship. The only possible evidence, a hearsay statement in the officer's probable cause affidavit, was insufficient to establish a dating relationship under the statutory definitions. Consequently, the court held that the trial court lacked discretion to enter the unsupported family-violence finding. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and struck the family-violence finding from the trial court's deferred adjudication order. View "ZAPATA v. STATE" on Justia Law

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine and was placed on deferred adjudication probation. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate, citing the appellant's custody on other charges. The trial court adjudicated the appellant guilty and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment, ordering the sentence to run consecutively with sentences from a prior case involving possession of child pornography. The appellant objected to the cumulation of sentences, but the objection was overruled.The appellant appealed to the 7th Court of Appeals, arguing that the evidence supporting the trial court’s decision to stack the sentences was insufficient. The appellate court agreed, noting that the record lacked necessary details such as the cause number, court of conviction, date of conviction, term assessed, and nature of the conviction. Consequently, the appellate court reformed the judgment to reflect that the sentences should run concurrently.The State then petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, arguing that the appellate court erred in deleting the cumulation order and that the proper remedy should be a remand for further development of the record. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the State, holding that if a cumulation order is not sufficiently specific, a remand may be permitted to allow the trial court to remedy the order. The court sustained the State’s grounds, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court as reformed. View "STRICKLAND v. STATE" on Justia Law

The applicant was convicted by a jury of injury to a child and sentenced to 35 years’ confinement. The prosecution's theory was that the applicant caused serious bodily injury to the infant victim through Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) or Shaken Impact Syndrome. The defense argued that the injuries were due to an old brain injury that began bleeding again either spontaneously or due to accidental trauma.The applicant's conviction was affirmed by the Dallas Court of Appeals, and a petition for discretionary review was refused. The applicant filed a second state writ application, which was dismissed at his request. He then filed a third writ application under Article 11.073 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that new scientific evidence contradicted the State’s evidence at trial. The habeas court recommended granting relief based on this new evidence, and the case was remanded for further hearings.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case and found that scientific knowledge regarding SBS, short-distance falls, rebleeds of subdural hematomas, and retinal hemorrhaging had evolved significantly since the applicant's trial. The court noted that new scientific evidence showed that short-distance falls could cause serious injuries, shaking alone was unlikely to cause such injuries, and rebleeds of subdural hematomas were common and could occur spontaneously or due to minor trauma. The court also found that the retinal hemorrhaging observed in the victim was not specific to SBS and could be caused by increased intracranial pressure.The court concluded that if the new scientific evidence had been presented at trial, it was more likely than not that the applicant would not have been convicted. Therefore, the court granted relief under Article 11.073, vacated the applicant’s conviction, and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. View "Ex Parte Roark" on Justia Law

David Asa Villarreal was convicted of murder with a repeat offender enhancement and sentenced to sixty years in prison. During his trial, the judge issued an order preventing Villarreal from discussing his ongoing testimony with his attorneys during an overnight recess, though he could discuss other aspects of the case. Villarreal argued that this order violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.The trial court's order was challenged, and the Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Villarreal's conviction. The appellate court was divided on whether the trial court's order constituted an abuse of discretion or should be reviewed de novo. The case was then brought before the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas for discretionary review.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas held that the trial judge's limited no-conferral order did not violate Villarreal's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court distinguished between prohibiting discussions about ongoing testimony, which is permissible, and prohibiting all communication, which is not. The court noted that the trial judge's order was narrowly tailored to prevent coaching while allowing discussions on other trial-related matters. The court emphasized that the right to counsel includes the ability to discuss trial tactics and other legal matters, but not the ongoing testimony itself. The court affirmed the judgment of the Fourth Court of Appeals, concluding that the trial judge's order did not meaningfully interfere with Villarreal's right to counsel. View "VILLARREAL v. STATE" on Justia Law

The Texas Department of Public Safety detained and arrested the appellant for criminal trespassing as part of Operation Lone Star in Maverick County. Unlike the appellant, the two women in his group were transferred to the custody of the U.S. Border Patrol. The appellant claimed selective arrest and prosecution based on his sex and sought relief through pretrial habeas proceedings.The trial court held a hearing and heard testimony from various witnesses, including DPS officers and a client advocate. The court found that the appellant, along with other adult males, was arrested for criminal trespass while the women were transferred to federal custody due to jail capacity issues. The trial court denied the appellant's pretrial writ and motion to dismiss, concluding there was no sex discrimination.The Fourth Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that the appellant's claim was cognizable on pretrial habeas and found that he had demonstrated a prima facie case of sex discrimination. The appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case to allow the State to rebut the presumption of sex discrimination under strict scrutiny.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case and agreed that the appellant's claim was cognizable. However, the court found that the appellant failed to meet the demanding burden of showing a prima facie case of selective enforcement or prosecution. The court noted that the evidence suggested the discriminatory effect was due to logistical issues during an ongoing state of emergency, rather than intentional sex discrimination. The court reversed the appellate court's decision and affirmed the trial court's denial of relief. View "EX PARTE APARICIO" on Justia Law

In 2009, the applicant was convicted of possessing more than one but less than four grams of cocaine and sentenced to two years and nine months in prison following a guilty plea. The conviction involved former Houston Police Department Officer Gerald Goines, who has been found to have provided false information and testimony in other drug cases. In 2019, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office informed the applicant that Goines was under criminal investigation. The applicant then filed for a writ of habeas corpus, initially on four grounds, but later amended it to focus solely on the claim that his guilty plea was involuntary due to not knowing about Goines’s misconduct.The 184th District Court of Harris County recommended granting relief, finding that the applicant’s guilty plea was involuntary and that the conviction was obtained through the use of false evidence. The court concluded that the applicant had established an inference of falsity under the Coty-Mathews framework, which applies to cases involving police officers with a history of falsifying evidence. The court found that the false evidence was material to the applicant’s guilty plea.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case to determine whether Goines’s conduct warranted an inference of falsity. The court concluded that the record did not support the habeas court’s conclusion because Goines was not the sole officer involved in the applicant’s arrest, and the evidence did not establish that Goines was the first to find the contraband. Therefore, the court held that an inference of falsity did not apply and remanded the case to the habeas court to consider the applicant’s involuntary plea claim without applying an inference of falsity. View "EX PARTE CHRISTIAN" on Justia Law

In 2018, Robbie Gail Charette, a Republican candidate for Judge of the County Court-at-Law in Washington County, Texas, was indicted on four misdemeanor charges related to campaign law violations. These charges included misrepresenting the source of a campaign communication, falsely claiming to hold a public office, failing to file a personal financial statement on time, and not maintaining proper records of political expenditures. A special prosecutor pursued these charges without a prior referral from the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC).The trial court denied Charette's pretrial habeas application, which argued that the prosecution was unauthorized without prior TEC proceedings. The court found no legislative language granting the TEC exclusive authority to enforce the violations and ruled that district attorneys could independently investigate and prosecute election-related crimes. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld this decision, stating that the district court had jurisdiction over the misdemeanors and that any alleged deprivation of civil due process rights by the TEC did not affect this jurisdiction.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that the TEC has exclusive jurisdiction over the offenses listed in Chapter 571 of the Texas Government Code. The court held that the TEC must make an initial determination on alleged violations before any criminal charges can be brought. Since no TEC proceedings occurred in Charette's case, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the charges. Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and ordered the dismissal of the indictments against Charette. View "EX PARTE CHARETTE" on Justia Law

In August 2021, the appellant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to 30 years in prison, along with an $8,000 fine and $325 in court costs. The trial court's judgment noted that an inquiry into the appellant's ability to pay was conducted, but no such inquiry appears in the record, nor did the appellant request it or object to its absence. The appellant argued that the trial court failed to conduct an ability-to-pay inquiry as required by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.15(a-1), and he claimed that he did not need to object to preserve this complaint.The 14th Court of Appeals in Houston reviewed the case and agreed with the appellant that the trial court had a duty to conduct the inquiry sua sponte, making it a non-forfeitable right under Marin v. State. However, the court upheld the trial court's judgment, citing a previous decision that the amendment requiring the inquiry to be on the record was not retroactive.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case and focused on whether the right to an ability-to-pay inquiry is a forfeitable right under Marin. The court concluded that the ability-to-pay inquiry is not fundamental to the adjudicatory process and is therefore a forfeitable right. The court noted that the inquiry is a post-trial procedure and does not affect the fairness or accuracy of the trial. Additionally, the court highlighted that relief from fines and costs is available after sentencing through other means. Consequently, the appellant forfeited his right to the inquiry by not objecting at trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgments of the lower courts. View "CRUZ V. TEXAS" on Justia Law

The appellant, a Democratic Party activist and former candidate for Plano City Council, was indicted for violating Section 255.004(b) of the Texas Election Code. This statute prohibits knowingly representing in a campaign communication that the communication emanates from a source other than its true source, with the intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election. The appellant sent text messages that appeared to come from a Republican or conservative campaign, identifying Republicans in local nonpartisan races. In response, the appellant filed a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional as it regulated core political speech and was not narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.The trial court denied the appellant's application. On appeal, the Fifth Court of Appeals agreed with the appellant, finding that the statute was not narrowly tailored and did not survive strict scrutiny. The appellate court held that the statute's broad reach was problematic and ordered the trial court to dismiss the indictment.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case upon the State's petition. The State argued that the statute was narrowly drafted and survived strict scrutiny. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that Section 255.004(b) of the Texas Election Code was unconstitutional. The court found that the statute was a content-based restriction on protected speech and did not meet the strict scrutiny standard. It was not narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of preventing dishonest conduct in elections. The court affirmed the Fifth Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the statute violated the First Amendment. View "EX PARTE STAFFORD" on Justia Law

The case involves an appellant who engaged in online conversations with an undercover police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl named "Alyssa." The appellant's communications became romantic and sexual, leading to a solicitation for a meeting to have sex. When confronted by police, the appellant claimed he intended to warn the girl about the dangers of meeting strangers online. At trial, he testified that he did not believe "Alyssa" was a minor and thought she was lying about her identity. He introduced testimony from a past "catfisher" and sought to introduce testimony from his brothers and autism experts, which the trial court excluded.The Fifth Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that the excluded testimony from the appellant's brothers and Dr. Masino, an autism expert, was relevant to rebut the mens rea element of whether the appellant knowingly solicited a minor. The court found that the exclusion of this evidence was constitutional error because it prevented the appellant from fully presenting his defense. Consequently, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case and disagreed with the lower court's decision. The court held that the expert testimony on autism did not directly rebut or negate the mens rea required for the offense. The court found that the autism evidence did not show that the appellant was incapable of perceiving the age of the person he was communicating with. The court concluded that the trial court properly excluded Dr. Masino's testimony and remanded the case to the court of appeals to address the admissibility of the brothers' testimony and Dr. Jerome's testimony. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "CRUMLEY v. STATE" on Justia Law