Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant sought habeas corpus relief, alleging that, because he had never been convicted of a sex offense, he was entitled to the requisite due process procedures when the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Parole Division (TDCJ) placed sex-offender conditions on his parole. The court held that no process was due to defendant because his computerized criminal history (CCH) file, maintained by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), and which was corroborated by police agency records, established that defendant had prior sex-offense convictions from Illinois that qualified under Texas's sex-offender registration law. Therefore, the court denied relief. View "Ex Parte Warren" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted for possession of more than five but less than fifty pounds of marijuana and sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. At issue was whether Brady was applicable when the State failed to disclose to appellant the portion of a videotape containing exculpatory statements he made to police. The court held that because the audio portion of the videotape was favorable evidence that would be material to appellant's case and the State failed to disclose such evidence to appellant, the State violated appellant's constitutional right as expressed in Brady. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. View "Pena v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted in December of 1995 of capital murder and subsequently, the trial court held a new punishment hearing in May 2009. Based on the jury's answers to the special issues, the trial judge sentenced appellant to death. On appeal, appellant raised five points of error. The court held that, so long as the federal district court's order set aside or invalidated the sentence, Article 44.29(c) authorized the trial court's action. The court also held that because appellant had not shown that the trial court improperly denied his challenges to at least two venirepersons, he could not show reversible error. Therefore, the court need not address appellant's third point of error regarding another venireperson. The court overruled appellant's fourth point of error that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to declare the 12-10 Rule unconstitutional. The court finally held that appellant's final point of error regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty was not ripe for review. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Gonzales v. State" on Justia Law