Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellant, convicted of money laundering after officers found half a million dollars in cash hidden inside the speaker box of his tractor-trailer, argued on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that the money represented proceeds from the delivery of a controlled substance. The court of appeals, relying in part on a drug-dog alert to the cash, rejected that argument. The narrow question before the Court of Criminal Appeals was whether the conclusion that the cash money in appellant's truck was the proceeds of drug trafficking was warranted by the cumulative force of all the circumstantial evidence. "In isolation, many of the facts relied on by the State could be characterized as only somewhat probative of whether appellant's cache of cash was drug-delivery proceeds. However, we do not consider evidence myopically or point out problems with the individual, separate facts underlying the State's case because all of the evidence-both direct and circumstantial-must be evaluated as a whole by the reviewing court." After reviewing all of the evidence, the Court agreed that the cumulative force of the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the cash was the proceeds of the sale of a controlled substance. View "Acosta v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed her on community supervision for a period of five years. The trial court twice extended her term of community supervision and, upon the state's third motion to adjudicate her guilt, assessed punishment at eight years' confinement. On direct appeal, appellant argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke her community supervision because the state filed its third motion to adjudicate after her community supervision had expired. The court of appeals overruled these issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review of two of the three grounds that appellant raised in her petition: (1) whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke appellant's community supervision because the motion to proceed to adjudicate was filed one day after the seven and one half year period of probation ended; and (2) "[w]hen the trial court pronounces the period of community supervision as being so many years and/or so many months and then the date is not correctly calculated so that the amount of years and/or months and the ending calendar date are [not] the same, which prevails, the announcement of the year and/or months or the calendar date, the longer period regardless of the conflict, the court's intent, or some other method of resolving the conflict?" The Court concluded that its holding in "Nesbit v. Texas" set out the required end-date calculation and controlled in the event of a conflict with a specified end-date. The Court therefore sustained those grounds and reversed the court of appeals' judgment. View "Whitson v. Texas" on Justia Law

A jury convicted appellant of driving while intoxicated. The trial judge denied his motion for new trial, which alleged that outside influences were improperly brought to bear on the jury foreman. The court of appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion for new trial alleging juror misconduct. Because appellant's "outside influence" argument misapplied the Court of Criminal Appeals' holding in McQuarrie v. Texas, the Court granted the State's petition for discretionary review. "Personal pressures [such as a fear of inclement weather or concern about a child's illness] are not 'outside influences' under Texas Rule of Evidence 606(b). Accordingly, juror testimony about these issues is not admissible." Because appellant failed to prove that the jury's verdict was tainted by juror misconduct, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying appellant's motion for new trial. The Court therefore reversed the court of appeals. View "Colyer v. Texas" on Justia Law

A jury convicted appellant of aggravated robbery and assessed his punishment, enhanced with one prior felony conviction, at seventy-five years' imprisonment. On appeal, appellant argued that the prosecutor willfully violated a pre-trial discovery order and that the trial court erred in failing to exclude from jury consideration the evidence that was wrongfully withheld from his court-ordered pre-trial scrutiny. The court of appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the prosecutor's violation of the discovery order was not willful and that exclusion of the evidence was, therefore, unnecessary. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals. View "Francis v. Texas" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, the issue before the Court of Criminal Appeals centered on an interpretation of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Miller v. Alabama, which held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids sentencing schemes for juveniles in which life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is mandatory rather than based upon an individualized sentencing assessment. Appellants argued that their sentences, which the appellate courts reformed to life imprisonment, were unconstitutional because they were not afforded individualized hearings at which to present mitigating evidence. The Court concluded it did not read Miller so broadly and therefore affirmed the judgment of the appellate courts. View "Lewis v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Ronald Glen Boston was found guilty of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to fifty-five years' imprisonment, conviction and sentence affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the victim was threatened or placed in fear of imminent bodily injury or death when the evidence showed that no threat was perceived by the victim. Because the Supreme Court concluded that a rational jury could have inferred that the victim was threatened and placed in fear, it affirmed the appellate court's judgment. View "Boston v. Texas" on Justia Law

The parties agreed that appellant's first name was Peter. At issue in this case were three exhibits that purported to be documentary evidence of prior convictions of a Peter Bruton from the United Kingdom. State's Exhibit 13 consisted of a letter and three "certificates of conviction" purporting to be from the Norwich Crown Court. The letter, addressed to the Denton County District Attorney and signed by a person purporting to be a caseworker from that court, directs the District Attorney to the "enclosed Certificates of Conviction as requested" for a "Peter Bruton" with a date of birth matching appellant's. The certificates of conviction "certify" a "Peter Bruton," with a date of birth matching appellant's, as having a total of twelve convictions for "indecent assault on a female." The letter and the certificates of conviction displayed a depiction of a crown with a lion and a unicorn, and all four documents provided case numbers for the convictions. The certificates of conviction were dated October 2008, and the letter referring to those certificates says that the certificates were enclosed in response to the District Attorney's letter. In this case, the issue before the Court of Criminal Appeals was whether two State's exhibits that purport to be foreign public documents or records were properly authenticated under Rules of Evidence 902(3) and (4). Although the documents met some of the requirements of the rules, the Court held that the documents were not properly authenticated because neither was accompanied by a final certification from a diplomatic or consular official specified in Rule 902(3) and because good cause for failing to obtain a final certification was lacking. View "Brunton v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of unlawful possession by a felon of a firearm and possession of body armor. The trial judge entered a deadly-weapon finding in the body-armor case. The issue before the Supreme Court on appeal of this case was one of first impression: whether, for purposes of Article 42.12, 3g, must the "exhibition" of a deadly weapon facilitate, in some manner, the associated felony offense, or was it sufficient that the exhibition of the deadly weapon occurs simultaneously with the felony but is unrelated to its commission? After careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded that there must be some facilitation purpose between the weapon and the associated offense to support a deadly-weapon finding. Because there was no evidence that appellant's possession of a mini-Glock pistol facilitated his commission of the offense of possession of body armor, the Court deleted the deadly weapon finding from the judgment.View "Plummer v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Kody William Farmer was convicted of driving while intoxicated and sentenced to 90 days' confinement and to pay a $200 fine. The question on appeal to the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether there was sufficient evidence introduced at trial to entitle Appellant to a jury-charge instruction on voluntariness. The court of appeals held that Appellant was entitled to a voluntariness instruction. Appellant suffered from chronic back pain due to a work-related injury. As a result, he had taken different medications on and off for more than 10 years, including Ultram, (a painkiller), and Soma (a muscle relaxer). Four days prior to the incidents at issue here, Appellant was prescribed Ambien (a sleep aid), for the first time to assist with insomnia. On the night he was pulled over, appellant stated to police that he did not remember taking any of his medications. At trial, Appellant's wife testified that she did not remember seeing Appellant take his medication that morning, but she remembered that "the Ambien I laid out for the night that was on the other side of [the] microwave was gone." She also testified that she was a hundred percent certain that "he took what I had laid out." Appellant appealed his conviction, and the court reversed Appellant's conviction and remanded to the trial court. It held that the facts of this case were "most closely akin to an involuntary act because the evidence suggests that although Farmer voluntarily took the pills laid out for him by his wife, he involuntarily took the Ambien pill because of his wife's act." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Appellant's action in taking the Ambien pill was a voluntary act because Appellant, of his own volition, picked up and ingested the Ambien pill. Because no other evidence at trial raised an issue of Appellant's voluntariness in taking that medication, the trial court properly denied Appellant's request. As a result, the court of appeals erred when it reversed the judgment of the trial court. View "Farmer v. Texas" on Justia Law

Vernon Moses was shot and killed in an apartment complex in Houston. Multiple witnesses gave statements to police; some of the witnesses testified at trial. Among those who testified was appellee Jeremy Thomas' girlfriend, Ciarra Vallery. Vallery stated that her sister, Shelita, was at the apartment complex on the night in question and told Vallery about the shooting, though Shelita said she "didn't see too much of it." During a bench conference after Vallery's testimony, the prosecutor asked defense counsel, "Are you going to put on [Shelita]?" Defense counsel responded, "No." Although Shelita did not testify at trial, she had given the police a statement, which appellee reviewed before giving his own statement to the police. Shelita's statement was made known and available to defense counsel months before the trial. A jury convicted appellee of murdering Moses, and the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for life. The question before the Court of Criminal Appeals in this case was whether a new trial could be granted in the interest of justice on a claim that defense counsel failed to call an exculpatory witness who was known to him and available at trial, if the claim was not based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court held that it could not. Therefore the Court affirmed the court of appeals which reserved the trial court. View "Texas v. Thomas" on Justia Law