Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

Applicant Joel De Los Reyes filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to advise him that he was almost certainly subject to deportation after he pled guilty to a second crime of moral turpitude. The trial court denied the application, but the El Paso Court of Appeals granted relief, holding that the rule from "Padilla" should be applied retroactively and that trial counsel was ineffective under that rule. After review, the Supreme Court recognized that it could give retroactive effect to "Padilla" as a matter of state habeas law. But the Court declined to do so. The Court adhered to the prevailing retroactivity analysis in Texas and held that "Padilla" did not apply retroactively. The appellate court's judgment was reversed in this case, and the trial court's original denial of applicant's application was reinstated. View "Ex parte Joel de Los Reyes" on Justia Law

After rejecting his entrapment defense, a jury convicted appellant Jose Vega of three drug offenses. On appeal, he argued that the trial judge reversibly erred by not instructing the jury accurately on his entrapment defense because the application instruction did not list inducement by the confidential informant as well as inducement by an undercover officer. The court of appeals held that appellant's failure to request that specific application instruction, or object to its omission, forfeited the issue on appeal. The Supreme Court granted review to reiterate that, "when a trial judge instructs on a defensive issue, he must do so correctly; thus any error in the charge actually given is subject to review under 'Almanza.'" In this case, the Court found that the judge's failure to list the confidential informant in the application charge was harmless because the entrapment instructions, taken as a whole, provided the jury with an adequate vehicle to fully consider and give effect to appellant's entrapment defense. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment. View "Vega v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Paul Krajcovic was charged with a murder committed in 2007. A jury found him guilty and sentenced him to fifty-five years' confinement. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his request for a jury instruction on the "Castle Doctrine," which went into effect on September 1, 2007. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for discretionary review to address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals' panel majority improperly applied the law on defensive instructions where there was no evidence that supported an inference that the requested defensive instruction on the "Castle Doctrine" applied to the case; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals' panel majority erred by holding the lack of the requested instruction was harmful where there was no evidence whatsoever of "retreat," and where a self-defense claim would have failed regardless of whether Appellant was legally required to retreat or not. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the court of appeals erred in failing to consider whether the evidence supported the inference that the Castle Doctrine applied to this case. The Court reversed the appellate court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Krajcovic v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant David Moulton was convicted of murder and sentenced to sixty years in prison. Finding that Appellant suffered "some harm" by the erroneous submission of the "by manner and means unknown" jury charge, the Sixth Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for further proceedings. The State filed a petition for discretionary review, which the Supreme Court granted. Finding "no harm" by the jury charge, and no error in the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and reversed the Court of Appeals. View "Moulton v. Texas" on Justia Law

A jury convicted appellant John Frangias of sexual assault and assessed his punishment at eight years' confinement in the penitentiary. Represented by different counsel on appeal, appellant filed a motion for new trial in which he argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when they failed: (1) to secure the presence of a critical witness at the guilt phase of the trial; (2) take his deposition in order to memorialize his testimony for presentation to the jury; or (3) alternatively, seek a continuance in order to secure that witness's testimony. The trial court allowed the motion for new trial to be denied by operation of law. The appellate court upheld that ruling, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the appellant did not establish that his trial counsel performed deficiently. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, finding that the appellate court erred to conclude that trial counsel's performance did not fall below the threshold of reasonableness, "[t]his does not necessarily mean, of course, that the trial court erred to deny the appellant's motion for new trial. There remains the question of whether it was within the trial court's considerable discretion to allow the motion for new trial to be denied by operation of law on the ground that the appellant failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of 'Strickland.' . . . the court of appeals did not reach the prejudice prong of Strickland. Moreover, in addressing the question of prejudice, it may also be necessary to resolve the competing contentions with regard to the evidentiary status of the various affidavits submitted by the parties--another issue that was raised, at least incidentally, but not resolved originally by the court of appeals." The Court reversed the appellate court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Frangias v. Texas" on Justia Law

In 1999, appellant Marcus Matlock was judicially determined to be the father of a five-year-old girl and ordered to pay child support. From the beginning, appellant frequently failed to pay the monthly child support. Appellant was charged with sixteen counts of nonsupport for failing to pay child support on the first of each month from February 2006 through November 2006, in January 2008, in June 2008, and from September 2008 through December 2008. The evidence was undisputed that appellant did not pay the required child support during those sixteen months. The only question was whether he had the ability to make those payments. Appellant testified that he didn't make any child support payments for either his daughter or son while he was in jail because "I didn't have no money. Nobody would give me money." There was no suggestion that appellant owned a car, a house, or a bank account. The jury found appellant guilty on all sixteen counts of nonsupport and sentenced him to confinement in a state jail facility for two years with a fine of $10,000 on each count. On direct appeal, appellant claimed that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's rejection of his "inability to pay" affirmative defense. The court of appeals focused on Count I-the failure to pay child support- and the undisputed evidence that appellant had been in the Smith County jail for the eleven months preceding that date. The court of appeals held that, "after considering all of the evidence relevant to Appellant's affirmative defense of inability to pay child support, . . . the jury's finding of guilt as to Count I of the indictment is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust." The State appealed, arguing that the court of appeals erred by applying a factual-sufficiency standard of review in deciding whether the evidence was legally sufficient to satisfy appellant's burden to prove his affirmative defense. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded: "[b]ecause the court of appeals conflated the standards for legal and factual sufficiency review, we are uncertain if it found that appellant had conclusively established his 'inability to pay' affirmative defense as a matter of law. Given its analysis, the court of appeals may have thought that the evidence supporting the jury's implicit rejection of appellant's affirmative defense was against the great weight of the evidence under a Meraz factual sufficiency claim. If the court thought that the jury's failure to find that appellant was unable to pay child support on February 1, 2006, was against the great weight of the evidence, then it should reverse the conviction on Count I and remand the case for a new trial on that count. Or the court of appeals might reach an entirely new conclusion based upon the standards of review that we have set out." View "Matlock v. Texas" on Justia Law

Defendant Stacie Kerwick moved to suppress evidence at trial, asserting that the that the officer who detained her lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory detention which led to her arrest for driving while intoxicated. The trial judge granted Kerwick's motion and the court of appeals affirmed the ruling. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded the officer was justified in suspecting that Kerwick was involved in criminal activity and detaining Kerwick to investigate further. The Court reversed the court of appeals's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Texas v Kewick" on Justia Law

Appellant Megan Winfrey was sixteen years old in 2004. In 2007, after an investigation that included dog-scent lineups, appellant and her father and brother were taken into custody and charged with the 2004 murder of Murray Burr, a man who worked at the local high school that appellant attended, who was found dead in his home with numerous stab wounds and multiple sharp- and blunt-force injuries. Appellant's indictment contained two counts: capital murder during the course of robbery and conspiracy to commit capital murder. Her father and brother were named as co-conspirators in the conspiracy count. A jury convicted her of both counts. The trial court sentenced appellant to life imprisonment for the capital-murder count and forty-five years' imprisonment for the conspiracy count. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, with one justice dissenting. "Basing a finding of appellant's guilt on this evidence and all of the other evidence is, at best, 'mere theorizing or guessing' about appellant's possible guilt rather than a reasonable inference based upon evidence and facts presented." After reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, the Supreme Court held that the evidence merely raised a suspicion of appellant's guilt and was legally insufficient to support a conviction of capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the Court found the evidence in the record was insufficient to sustain the agreement element of the conspiracy statute. Appellant was thus entitled to her requested relief regarding her convictions. View "Winfrey v. Texas" on Justia Law

Applicant pled guilty to two counts of attempted capital murder and one count of murder. The trial court imposed separate and cumulative life sentences for each conviction. In a subsequent writ of habeas corpus, applicant's murder conviction was determined to be barred by double jeopardy. On appeal, Applicant contended that he can be guilty of only one of the two alleged attempted capital murders because the second conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Applicant had shown that his conviction and sentencing for the second offense violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Applicant also made a prima facie showing of actual innocence of one of the two counts. Thus, the Court granted applicant's first and second grounds for relief, vacated the trial court's judgment with respect to that count, and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "Ex parte Kenneth Milner" on Justia Law

A jury found appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated. At trial, the state sought to introduce videotape evidence of appellant's admission that he had ingested hydrocodone earlier that day, along with expert testimony about the effects of combining hydrocodone and alcohol. Appellant objected but, after a hearing on the objection, the trial court allowed the state to introduce the videotape evidence and the expert testimony. After trial, appellant appealed, arguing inter alia, that "the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of drug use without a proper foundation showing its relevance." The court of appeals held that appellant did not properly preserve that issue for appeal and overruled the issue. Appellant raised two issues before the Supreme Court on appeal: (1) whether the court of appeals erred in finding that appellant did not properly preserve error; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the expert testimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the court of appeals erred in finding that appellant did not properly preserve error and sustain appellant's first issue. The Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case for consideration of appellant's second issue. View "Everitt v. Texas" on Justia Law