Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellant Terri Lang was convicted of organized retail theft (ORT). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently found the evidence insufficient to support Appellant’s ORT conviction and remanded the case to the court of appeals to determine whether the judgment of conviction should have been reformed to a lesser-included offense. The court of appeals found that reformation was not available, and the State petitioned for discretionary review. Because the existence of an owner was a statutory element of theft, but the identity of the owner was not, theft was a lesser-included offense of ORT in this case, and Appellant’s conviction met the “Thornton” reformation standards. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, modified the judgment to reflect a conviction for theft, and remanded the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing. View "Lang v. Texas" on Justia Law

At issue before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in this case was whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the State from prosecuting appellant Cedric Richardson for the aggravated assault of one victim after a jury acquitted him of capital murder, and aggravated robbery of a different victim. Both victims were shot by co-defendant Keoddrick Polk on the same day—and Appellant was present at the scene of both shootings. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that collateral estoppel (i.e., Double Jeopardy) did not apply in this case. The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals which held to the contrary. View "Ex parte Cedric Richardson" on Justia Law

Appellant Harold Jefferson was indicted for one count of sexual assault and one count of indecency with a child. The State amended the indictment to add two more sexual-assault counts. On appeal, Appellant argued the trial court erred in allowing the amendment and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the amendment or otherwise preserve error. The issues presented for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals were: (1) whether adding a count constituted adding an additional offense to the indictment; and (2) whether counsel should have known that. To these, the Court answered both questions “yes.” The Court also concluded that the court of appeals erred in its ineffective-assistance analysis in several otherrespects. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jefferson v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Silas Parker was charged with possession with intent to deliver four hundred grams or more of a controlled substance, namely, psilocybin. Appellant contested the legality of the search warrant on the ground that probable cause did not exist when it was issued since the psilocybin had not yet been delivered. This case presented a matter of first impression for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals: Are all anticipatory search warrants prohibited under Texas law? The Court held that the language of article 18.01(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure permitted anticipatory search warrants and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Parker v. Texas" on Justia Law

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review in this case to determine whether the court of appeals erred when it held that a criminal defendant could never waive the right to counsel at a retrospective competency hearing and proceed pro se. Appellant Edwin Antonio Osorio-Lopez was accused of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and evading arrest in November 2017. When he appeared in court to plead guilty, he changed his mind and decided to go to trial and represent himself. Before the bench trial began, the attorneys and interpreter approached the trial court with concerns about Appellant’s mental health. The trial court appointed an expert who found Appellant incompetent to stand trial, and the trial court signed an order committing Appellant to Rusk State Hospital for no more than 120 days. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the lower court erred in reaching the self-representation issue because the trial court did not deny Appellant’s request to represent himself; Appellant was permitted to proceed pro se. Therefore, the issue was not whether Appellant had a right to self-representation at a retrospective competency hearing but whether Appellant was competent to waive counsel and whether he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently did so after asserting his desire to represent himself. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed and the case remanded for the court of appeals to undertake the necessary analysis in the first instance. View "Osorio-Lopez v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Syed Nawaz was convicted on two counts of injury to a child, but under different subsections of Texas Penal Code Section 22.04: 22.04(a)(1) and 22.04(a)(2). Appellant argued on appeal that his two convictions constituted the imposition of multiple punishments for the “same” offense, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals previously concluded that, at least for purposes of a defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict, Sections 22.04(a)(1) and 22.04(a)(2) constituted discrete offenses. Nevertheless, the court of appeals in this case determined that convicting Appellant for both offenses constituted multiple punishments for the “same” offense, in violation of federal double-jeopardy protections. The Court concluded that punishing Appellant in the same trial for causing serious bodily injury, under Section 22.04(a)(1), and also for causing serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury, under Section 22.04(a)(2), did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. There was some evidence that, by whatever act or acts Appellant inflicted the “whip-lash-type” injuries to the victim, those injuries included both “serious bodily injury” in the form of retinal bleeding that caused her blindness, and “serious mental deficiency” in the form of diffuse brain bleeding that has caused her developmental delays. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed insofar as it vacated Appellant’s conviction and punishment under Count II of the indictment, and the case was remanded to that court for further proceedings. View "Nawaz v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Darryl Joe was charged with and convicted of cargo theft. He challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, arguing that the goods were not cargo, he was never in possession of the goods, and even if he possessed the goods, he did not conduct an activity in which he possessed stolen cargo. After review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the goods were cargo, and Appellant possessed the goods. The case was remanded for the court of appeals to consider whether Appellant conducted an activity in which he possessed stolen cargo. View "Joe v. Texas" on Justia Law

For his possession of a video that represented itself as a French nudist documentary, Appellant Carlos Romo, Jr. was convicted of possession of child pornography. The issue before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was whether the video was child pornography. The court of appeals concluded that the evidence was legally insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction. But the Court of Criminal Appeals determined the court of appeals focused too heavily on the lack of sexual activity in the video and "neglected to consider the video holistically." The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the video constituted child pornography because the jury could rationally conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the video contained a lewd exhibition of child genitalia. View "Romo v. Texas" on Justia Law

Applicant Richard Rivers was serving two sentences that involved Texas’ mandatory supervision statute in both its automatic and discretionary forms. The question his appeal presented for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was whether the Texas Department of Criminal Justice could legally decline to release an inmate to mandatory supervision on one sentence until the inmate was eligible for release on all concurrent sentences. Because Applicant was eligible for mandatory supervision release on one of his convictions, the Court granted relief as to that sentence. However, because Applicant was ineligible for mandatory supervision on his second sentence, he was not entitled to immediate release as to that sentence. View "Ex parte Richard Rivers" on Justia Law

Appellant Vincent Stredic was tried by jury, accused of murder. During deliberations, jurors disagreed about certain testimony. By statute, testimony may be read back on a point on which the jurors disagree. But instead of merely reading back the testimony in question, the trial court gave the jury a written transcript of that testimony. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court erred in doing so and that Appellant was harmed by the error. To this, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that the trial court erred in giving the jury a written transcript, but the Court concluded this error was harmless. Accordingly, the Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and affirmed the trial court. View "Stredic v. Texas" on Justia Law