Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellant Deborah Bowen's father died in 2001. Her father's will established a family trust, and Appellant's mother was named as the primary beneficiary. The trust was to terminate at her mother's death, and the trust assets were to be distributed equally, per stirpes, to Appellant and her brother, Jackie. Jackie predeceased his mother, leaving three children. Appellant was appointed co-trustee in 2004. The balance of the trust at the time of appointment was $620,065. Appellant distributed the entire balance of the trust to herself when her mother died, rather than distribute one-half of the assets to Jackie's children, as required by the trust provisions. Jackie's daughter, Dana White, had power of attorney to act on behalf of her two brothers. Appellant was charged with misapplication of fiduciary property owned by or held for the benefit of White for the value of $200,000 or more. Tex. Penal Code section 32.45(b) & (c)(7). She was convicted by a jury, sentenced to eight years in prison, and ordered to pay a fine and restitution to White and her brothers. No lesser-included offense instructions were submitted to the jury. The State filed a petition for discretionary review, asking the Court to overrule "Collier v. Texas" (999 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)) in which the Court held that the court of appeals cannot reform a conviction of a greater offense to a lesser-included offense unless the lesser-included offense was requested by the parties or included in the jury charge. Further, the State argued that the judgment of the Eastland Court of Appeals be reversed and remanded to reflect a conviction for the appropriate lesser-included offense. Upon review, The Court overruled "Collier" and its progeny. Appellant's conviction stood, and the Court reversed the judgment of the Eastland Court of Appeals. The case was remanded to the trial court to reform the conviction to reflect the felony of misapplication of of fiduciary property in the second degree and to conduct a new punishment hearing. View "Bowen v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Jeri Montgomery caused a three-car collision, during which a passenger in one of the other vehicles was killed. The grand jury indicted Appellant for criminally negligent homicide, alleging that she had made an unsafe lane change and had failed to keep a proper lookout. A petit jury found Appellant guilty and also found that her vehicle was a deadly weapon. The jury assessed punishment of ten years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, probated for ten years, and a $10,000 fine. On appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals found the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction and rendered a judgment of acquittal. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the four grounds raised in the State's petition for review: (1) the court of appeals erred in holding that "cell phone usage while operating a vehicle" does not constitute morally blameworthy conduct and does not justify criminal sanctions; (2) the court of appeals erred in presuming that the negligent act in a criminally negligent homicide must itself be an illegal act; (3) the court of appeals erred in holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove criminally negligent homicide where the appellant was traveling less than 39 miles per hour and was 92 feet past the interstate highway entrance ramp at the time that she attempted to cross in front of other vehicles to enter the freeway; and (4) the court of appeals erred in holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove criminally negligent homicide where the Appellant was admittedly distracted by talking on a cell phone at the time that she attempted to cross in front of other vehicles to enter the interstate highway ramp, which she had already missed by 92 feet. Upon review, the Court found that the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain Appellant's conviction for criminally negligent homicide, and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Montgomery v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Jamie Moore challenged the court of appeals' decision to affirm the trial court's judgment that included an order cumulating his sentence in this case for possession of methamphetamine with an earlier sentence he had received for possession of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone. The trial court and court of appeals determined that cumulation of the sentences was mandatory under Texas Health and Safety Code section 481.134(h). Because the record did not support mandatory cumulation under that provision and because the record revealed that the trial court did not otherwise intend to cumulate the sentences, the Court of Criminal Appeals modified the judgment of the court of appeals to delete the cumulation order and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "Moore v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Thomas Paul Tucker was charged by information with possession of two ounces or less of marijuana within 1,000 feet of a drug-free zone in violation of Texas Health and Safety Code sections 481.121 and 481.134(f). Appellant filed two pre-trial motions to suppress, which were denied following a hearing. Appellant pled nolo contendere, and the trial court found him guilty. He was sentenced to ninety days' confinement and a $1,000 fine. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's implied findings. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted Appellant's petition for discretionary review to consider whether the court of appeals erred in upholding the trial court's implicit finding that Appellant's consent to the search of his residence was voluntary. Because the court of appeals failed to evaluate all of the evidence that was admitted into the record by the trial court, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings. View "Tucker v. Texas" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and the court of appeals reversed the conviction, remanding for a new trial. The state petitioned for discretionary review on two grounds: Did defendant preserve his complaint for appeal and if he did, did the trial court err by commenting on his failure to testify at trial. The court held that the complaint was not preserved for appeal where none of the three complaints at issue met the requirements for preservation. Therefore, the court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to that court so that it could consider defendant's other claims of error. View "Brewer v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder for the death of his girlfriend's two-year-old son. The court of appeals determined that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that defendant intentionally or knowingly caused the death of the child and, accordingly, reversed the capital murder conviction and acquitted defendant of that charge. That court also determined that there was jury-charge error and remanded the case for a new trial on the lesser-included offense that had been included in the jury charge. The court subsequently granted review of all seven grounds raised by the state prosecuting attorney's petition. The court overruled grounds one through six and dismissed ground seven, affirming the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Louis v. State" on Justia Law

The state petitioned for discretionary review challenging the court of appeals' judgment acquitting defendant for her conviction for endangering a child on the basis of insufficient evidence. The court concluded that the court of appeals properly determined that the evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant placed her child in imminent danger of bodily injury or physical impairment, and therefore, affirmed the judgment. View "Garcia v. State" on Justia Law

This case involved the admissibility of scientific evidence under Texas Rule of Evidence 702 and Kelly v. State. At issue was whether the court of appeals erred in holding that EMIT drug test results were not reliable without a confirmation test. The court held that the court of appeals did err because EMIT tests were reliable under the first two prongs of Kelly. View "Sommers v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant, the property manager of the Galleria Shopping Mall in Houston, was charged with unauthorized discharge of industrial waste after a pressure-washing contractor allegedly discharged contaminated water while cleaning the Galleria Mall's underground parking garages. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. The trial judge concluded that the two searches were improper under the Fourth Amendment because both the owner of the pressure washing company, who worked with police on investigating competing pressure-washing companies, and the law enforcement officer were trespassers upon the property at the time they entered, searched, and seized evidence from the Galleria premises. The State appealed and the court of appeals reversed. The court granted defendant's petition for discretionary review and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Jones. View "State v. Bell" on Justia Law

In this felony prosecution for possession of ecstasy, the State appealed from the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence that defendant contended was obtained as a result of an illegal traffic stop. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that defendant's initial detention was illegal and that the taint emanating from the initial illegality was not attenuated by the fact that, immediately after the initial stop, defendant was found to have an outstanding arrest warrant that might have given rise to a valid search incident to arrest. The court of appeals adopted an approach that would effectively presume purposeful and/or flagrant police misconduct from the fact of the primary illegality alone rather than assessing the character of that illegality, and of any subsequent police conduct, to determine whether it indicated they they actually behaved purposefully or flagrantly in the particular case. Thus, the court held that the court of appeals erred to rely upon this de facto presumption to affirm the trial court's ruling on defendant's motion to suppress. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "State v. Mazuca" on Justia Law