Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

In November 2010, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. In his automatic appeal, Appellant raised 46 points of error. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of death. View "Green v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Bradley Crenshaw was convicted of driving while intoxicated. The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, determining that the trial court erred in submitting a jury charge that included both the subjective and per se definitions of intoxication, even though the information alleged only the subjective definition. The Supreme Court granted the State's application for discretionary review. Upon review, the Court concluded that the per se definition of intoxication was only in the abstract section of the jury charge, and it was not incorporated into the application paragraph. The application paragraph tracked the language of the information, which alleged the subjective theory of intoxication, and thus restricted the jury's consideration to only those allegations contained in the information. The jury was presumed to have understood and followed the court's charge, absent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the Court presumed that the jury convicted Appellant of DWI pursuant to the subjective theory of intoxication, and reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court's conviction. View "Crenshaw v. Texas" on Justia Law

Defendant Timothy Robinson was convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, namely cocaine, in the amount of 200 grams or more but less than 400 grams, and the jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison with a $10,000 fine. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, finding that, although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to suppress, the trial court's failure to provide a jury instruction pursuant to Article 38.23(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure was error for which the record demonstrated egregious harm, warranting remand for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted the State Prosecuting Attorney's (SPA) petition for discretionary review to address its sole issue with regard to the propriety of the trial court's decision to deny an Article 38.23(a) jury instruction. Upon review, the Court held that that the court of appeals erred to conclude that the appellant was entitled to an Article 38.23(a) jury instruction since there was no dispute about the material historical facts. The only dispute was about the legal significance of those facts - -a dispute that juries are not authorized to resolve. Therefore the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed. View "Robinson v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Billy Dee Riley, Jr. asserted on appeal that because of his trial counsel's ineffective assistance, he was denied an opportunity to be placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision. The court of appeals agreed and sustained his complaint. The State appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that it was "apparent" that counsel's performance in giving incorrect advice regarding probation was deficient. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, the Court found that, while appellant had shown deficient performance by trial counsel, he failed to prove that had defense counsel properly informed appellant of his ineligibility for probation, there was a reasonable probability that his trial would have produced a different result. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied appellant's motion for new trial. View "Riley v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant was indicted for aggravated sexual assault. The indictment also alleged, for enhancement purposes, that appellant had previously been convicted in Utah of the offense of sexual exploitation of a child. Upon appellant's conviction, the trial judge found the enhancement allegation to be true and imposed an automatic life sentence under Penal Code Section 12.42(c)(2). On appeal, appellant contended that the Utah offense was not the type of offense that could be used for enhancement under the automatic-life sentencing provision. The court of appeals rejected appellant's contention and affirmed the judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Utah offense contained elements substantially similar to the Texas child-pornography offense and affirmed both the trial and appellate courts. View "Outland v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellee Gilbert Duarte was charged with possession of cocaine found during a search of his house that was made pursuant to a warrant. The affiant police officer relied upon information provided by a first-time informant who was providing information with the expectation of leniency on his pending criminal charges. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge, who found that the affidavit in this case failed to provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed to search Appellee's home. The Court therefore reversed the court of appeals, which had reversed the trial judge's order granting appellee's motion to suppress. View "Texas v. Duarte" on Justia Law

A DPS trooper stopped appellant for speeding. When the trooper asked appellant whether she had ever been in trouble for anything, she answered "no." This case involved a motion to suppress evidence that was seized because, among other things, a criminal history check revealed that appellant's answer was inaccurate. The case also involved the meaning of "disputed fact issue" in the context of an Article 38.23 jury instruction. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeals correctly decided the suppression question but incorrectly decided the jury instruction issue. Consequently, the Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment. View "Hamal v. Texas" on Justia Law

Applicant Ronald Rogers pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and attempted aggravated sexual assault. Wearing a white mask, he hid in the stall of a women's restroom in an office building and attacked a woman, T.G., as she exited another stall. He pinned her to a wall and held a knife to her throat. T.G. pushed Applicant and began screaming. She ran out of the restroom, and other workers noticed her upset state. Applicant tried to leave the building but was stopped after a struggle with bystanders. When Applicant was apprehended, he was found carrying several items, including nylon rope, duct tape, handcuffs, gloves, and a glass pipe. A jury assessed punishment of a total of seventy-five years' confinement and $10,000 in fines. On appeal, the First Court of Appeals affirmed Applicant's conviction. Applicant filed applications for writs of habeas corpus, alleging that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the punishment stage of trial. The convicting court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending that the Court of Criminal Appeals deny relief. The Court filed and set the applications, and granted relief. "Here, counsel failed to adequately investigate Applicant's whereabouts during the attack, and apparently he was aware that Applicant had been excluded by DNA. Had he presented this evidence, the probative value of [the victim's] testimony may not have been substantially outweighed by undue prejudice." View "Ex parte Rogers" on Justia Law

Before trial, Appellant Jimmy Gonzales filed a motion to suppress following a traffic stop, asserting that his seizure violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution. An Abilene police officer witnessed Appellant stopped on a desolate road. Believing he needed assistance, the officer activated his lights to signal to Appellant that he was an officer and not a "bad guy" that had pulled behind him. Upon his approach towards Appellant's vehicle, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the passenger compartment. Appellant's eyes were bloodshot and his speech was slurred. The officer eventually arrested Appellant for driving while intoxicated. Appellant moved to suppress, arguing that the officer did not have probable cause to seize him. The trial judge overruled the motion. The court of appeals affirmed and held the seizure was a reasonable exercise of the officer's community-caretaking function. Holding that Appellant's motion to suppress was properly denied, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals' judgment. View "Gonzales v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Jonathan Green was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Shortly before the scheduled execution of the sentence on June 30, 2010, he applied for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he was incompetent to be executed. After the trial court held a hearing and found him competent, the Court of Criminal Appeals stayed his execution to review the trial court's determination. Having reviewed the three matters the appellant brought to the Court, it lifted the stay of execution. First, the Court held that Article 46.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided an adequate remedy for claims of incompetence to be executed, which leads the Court to dismiss the appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus. Second, the Court held that the district court applied the correct legal standard and was within its discretion to find the appellant competent; therefore, the Court affirmed the court in in that respect. Finally, the Court dismissed the appellant's appeal from the denial of his motion to recuse the trial judge because it was not properly before the Court. View "Green v. Texas" on Justia Law