Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of intentional murder committed in the course of a robbery, a capital offense, and the jury answered the statutory special issues in such a way that the trial court was obligated to assess the death penalty. Direct appeal was automatic to the court. In fourteen points of error, defendant contended that the trial court erred in various respects. The court disagreed and found defendant's contentions to be without merit. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of death. View "Leza v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the court granted review to determine: "In a driving while intoxicated case, where the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction on the theory that the defendant was intoxicated by alcohol, is it proper for the trial court, in its charge, to also authorize a conviction on an alternative theory that the defendant was intoxicated by a drug, or a combination of alcohol and a drug, where the evidence merely shows that medications prescribed for the defendant were found in her car?" The court held that because there was evidence relating to the challenged portions of the definition, the charge was proper. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Ouellette v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for theft by deception for stolen machinery, including a bulldozer. At trial, the jury charge allowed for a conviction without limiting the manner in which the theft was committed. The jury found defendant guilty as charged in the indictment and sentenced him to 3 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The court of appeals acquitted defendant because there was no evidence of deception. At issue was whether the court of appeals erred in requiring the state to prove theft by deception, where deception was alleged in the indictment. The court held that if an indictment used a statutory definition to specify how a theft was committed, the state must prove the offense as charged in the indictment. Therefore, because the state produced no evidence of deception, the court affirmed the court of appeals. View "Geick v. State" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant of the first degree felony offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child, committed in 2006, in addition to other sex offenses. The court of appeals held that defendant's prior sex-offense convictions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice qualified as convictions under the laws of another state and thus required an automatic life sentence under Texas Penal Code 12.42(c)(2)(b)(v). The court agreed based on the court's interpretation of the definition of "state" in Texas Government Code Section 311.005(7). Therefore, the court affirmed the court of appeal's judgment. View "Rushing v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for continuous sexual abuse of a young child under the statute commonly known as Jessica's Law. Without objection from defendant, the offense of aggravated assault was submitted to the jury as a lesser-included offense. The jury found defendant was not guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a young child but guilty of aggravated sexual assault. On appeal, defendant contended that, for prosecutions under the statute, the jury must determine as a preliminary matter whether an offense was a lesser-included offense. The court rejected defendant's contention and affirmed the conviction. View "Soliz v. State" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant of capital murder and the trial court automatically sentenced defendant to life imprisonment without parole. At issue was whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to review defendant's issues regarding legal insufficiency under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, as required by Jackson v. Virginia. Also at issue was whether the court of appeals erred in failing to distinguish a sufficiency review under Malik v. State, an independent state-ground for review, and Jackson, a federal constitutional review. The court held that the court of appeals did not fail to distinguish between sufficiency reviews under Malik and Jackson. The court also held that the court of appeals correctly applied the Jackson evidentiary-sufficiency standard to the hypothetically correct jury charge and held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant's conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings. View "Adames v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with capital murder. A jury found defendant guilty and the trial court assessed the automatic punishment of confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. At issue was whether the eyewitness-identification expert testimony was relevant. The court held that the testimony was reliable and relevant, and the court of appeals erred in holding otherwise. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded for a harm analysis. View "Tillman v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder for hiring a third party to kill his estranged wife. On direct appeal, the court reviewed defendant's thirty-two points of error and concluded that they were without merit. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence. View "Fratta v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated assault and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. At issue was whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court had authority to grant a motion for reconsideration or reduction of sentence and modified the original sentence without a hearing and outside the presence of the parties. The court held that the absence of an oral pronouncement of the modified sentence in the presence of all parties affected only defendant's punishment, so the appropriate remedy in this case was to allow the plea of guilty to remain and to remand the case to the trial court for the proper assessment of punishment. Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for reassessment of punishment. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted by a jury of family-violence assault on the victim, who was about thirty-eight weeks pregnant with his child at the time of the assault. The State Prosecuting Attorney (SPA) subsequently argued that this court should reassess the appropriateness of certain factors set forth in Harris v. State in assessing the harmfulness of constitutional error. In addressing the first Harris factor, the court held that it failed to see how purporting to identify the State as a "source" of constitutional error revealed anything about whether, or to what extent, the error could have contributed to the conviction. The court also held that it failed to see the utility of the last Harris factor, namely, whether declaring the error harmless would encourage repeat performances by the State. The court held, however, that the remaining Harris factors - the nature of the error, whether it was emphasized by the State, the probable implications of the error, and the weight the jury would likely have assigned to it in the course of deliberations - remained as viable considerations in deciding whether trial error of a constitutional dimension contributed to the conviction or punishment in many cases. Under these circumstances, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that any residual prejudice emanating from the prosecutor's illegitimate guilt-phase remark that called the jury's attention to appellant's lack of in-court remorse contributed not at all to its assessment of his punishment. View "Snowden v. State" on Justia Law