Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

In the early morning hours of September 26, 2015, Appellant Carlos Lozano shot and killed Jorge Hinojos in the parking lot outside Pockets Billiards and Fun in El Paso. Appellant went to Pockets to meet Fernanda Avila, whom he was dating at the time. According to people in the group, Appellant was in a good mood until he noticed that one of the guys at the table had been talking to Avila, at which point he got angry. Hinojos, his girlfriend Diana Ruiz, and their friend Carolina Rocha went to Pockets the same night. They arrived in Carolina’s car around midnight. While they were there, they ran into three of Carolina’s friends—David Torres, "Carlos," and "Chrystyan." At closing time, Avila went home in her own car; Appellant remained in his in the parking lot. Carolina went to the restroom, then met Hinojos and Diana outside. They walked to one of Carolina’s friend’s car to make plans for later. After meeting at Carolina’s friend’s car, Carolina continued walking to her car, distracted from texting on her phone. Appellant nearly hit Carolina in his truck. Once Appellant stopped the truck, Applicant rolled down the passenger-side window but did not say anything. Hinojos then threw a full beer can through the open passenger-side window. Diana said that the can “exploded,” spilling beer everywhere. Torres testified that he then saw Appellant get a backpack from the backseat of his truck, pull out a gun, and point it in the direction of the open passenger window. According to Torres, Hinojos did not see the gun because by the time Appellant removed the gun from his backpack, Hinojos had already begun to run around the truck to the open driver’s-side window, where he punched Appellant. Diana and Carolina said that Hinojos punched Appellant once. When Hinojos punched Appellant through the window, Appellant turned towards Hinojos and shot him three times, killing him. The question in this case was whether Appellant was egregiously harmed by erroneous self-defense instructions when he was not entitled to deadly force self-defense instructions in the first place. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals answered that question no and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Lozano v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Bethany Maciel was convicted by jury of driving while intoxicated (DWI) with an alcohol concentration level of 0.15 or more, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court assessed punishment at twenty days in jail and a $2,500 fine. Appellant claimed the trial court erred by denying her requested jury instruction on the defense of necessity. The court of appeals held that there was no error in refusing the jury charge on necessity. After review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed and held that Appellant was entitled to a jury instruction on necessity, and the failure to include it was harmful. View "Maciel v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellee Martin Lopez spend 112 days in jail on felony charges, that was reduced after 85 days to a Class A misdemeanor. After the trial court granted Appellee’s motion for speedy trial and dismissed the case, the State appealed. The court of appeals considered the Barker v. Wingo factors - length of delay, reasons for delay, defendant’s assertion of the right, and prejudice to defendant - and upheld the trial court’s dismissal. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, finding that: (1) counsel for Appellee requested an improper remedy – asking for a speedy trial while simultaneously acknowledging Appellee’s incompetence and asking for a dismissal 112 days after his arrest (both at the bench and in the speedy trial motion he filed), and (2) that the second visiting trial judge exceeded her authority by granting that motion and then dismissing the case. The Court found that during the “non-evidentiary” hearing on August 8, 2017, state statutes and precedent were not followed, and some of the factual and legal assertions were inaccurate. Accordingly, based on its independent review of the record and the unique circumstances in this case, judgment was reversed. View "Texas v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Appellant Phi Van Do was charged with DWI. A first-time DWI is a Class B misdemeanor unless the Stat also proves that an analysis of a specimen of the person’s blood, breath or urine showed an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more at the time the analysis was performed (in which event, it becomes a Class A misdemeanor). Appellant’s charging instrument included the 0.15 allegation, but the State did not read the allegation until the punishment stage of trial. The parties agreed the 0.15 allegation was an element of the offense of Class A misdemeanor DWI. They also agreed that an error occurred, but they disagreed on what kind of error it was. The State also contended the court of appeals erred in its harm analysis. Assuming the parties were correct that 0.15 allegation was an element, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the error would be the denial of the right to a jury determination of that element. The Court also concluded this purported error was harmless because the 0.15 allegation was uncontroverted and the record indicated defendant could not bring forth facts to contest it. Accordingly, the court of appeals’ judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for the trial court to address Appellant’s remaining point of error. View "Do v. Texas" on Justia Law

At his trial for aggravated sexual assault of a child, Appellant Roberto Hernandez unsuccessfully sought jury instructions on lesser offenses of indecency with a child. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and ordered a new trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals because a separate offense, even if it is a lesser offense, is not an included offense. More specifically, an allegation that a defendant penetrated a child’s mouth with his penis does not include claims that he touched the child’s torso with his penis or touched her vagina with his hand. “Although they are lesser, those are not included offenses because they are separate crimes for which the defendant could be prosecuted in addition to the greater, charged offense.” View "Hernandez v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Jerod Roland pled no contest to official oppression, a Class A misdemeanor. The court of appeals held that the county court at law had no jurisdiction over the case because district courts and criminal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over misdemeanors involving official misconduct. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that, because of changes in the Texas Constitution and because of the wording of relevant statutes, some county courts at law did have concurrent jurisdiction over misdemeanors involving official misconduct, and the Fort Bend County Court at Law was one of those courts. View "Roland v. Texas" on Justia Law

The issue in this case is whether the trial court should have permitted Appellant Jose Sanchez to withdraw his waiver of a jury trial that was executed in anticipation of a negotiated plea that was never consummated. After overruling several requests by Appellant to withdraw his jury waiver, the trial court afforded him a bench trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the trial court abused its discretion by failing to permit the withdrawal of appellant’s jury-trial waiver. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Sanchez v. Texas" on Justia Law

A confidential informant employed by a police agency arranged to purchase methamphetamine from Appellant Darren Biggers. When Appellant arrived in his vehicle at the arranged place and time, officers detained him for a narcotics investigation. The investigating officer saw a Sprite bottle and a white Styrofoam cup, both filled with “a purple-type substance.” Appellant admitted that it was “lean” (a term for codeine cough syrup mixed in a beverage). The substance field-tested positive for codeine, and officers arrested Appellant for possession of a controlled substance. The State charged Applicant with possession of a Penalty Group 4 controlled substance (codeine) in an amount over 400 grams. During the State’s case-in-chief, the State proffered testimony from a chemist regarding the contents of the Sprite bottle and a Styrofoam cup. The chemist explained that she was not asked to quantify the amount of codeine and promethazine in the Sprite bottle or the Styrofoam cup, and she did not know the concentration level of codeine in either sample. The chemist testified that promethazine was a nonnarcotic active medicinal ingredient, but she never testified as to “whether the combination of promethazine and codeine had valuable medicinal qualities other than those possessed by the codeine alone.” On appeal, Appellant argued that, at best, the State only established the mere presence of promethazine, and that by failing to prove the level of concentration of codeine in the substances possessed by Appellant, as required by the statute, the State failed to establish an essential element of the offense. The court of appeals agreed, finding the evidence was insufficient to establish that (1) the concentration level of the codeine was not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters, and (2) the presence of promethazine was in a sufficient proportion to convey on the mixture valuable medicinal qualities other than those possessed by the codeine alone. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concurred the evidence was insufficient to prove that Appellant possessed Penalty Group 4 codeine, but was not negated beyond a reasonable doubt as required for Penalty Group 1 codeine, therefore the Court held Appellant did not possess Penalty Group 1 codeine. The Court agreed with the court of appeals that Appellant was entitled to an acquittal. View "Biggers v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Marvin Rodriquez was charged with murder. At trial he requested jury instructions on the defenses of necessity, self-defense, and defense of a third person. The trial court denied his request, and he was convicted. The court of appeals affirmed on grounds that Appellant failed to satisfy the confession-and-avoidance doctrine. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Appellant’s petition for discretionary review to consider whether his actions and admissions satisfied the doctrine of confession and avoidance, whether Martinez v. Texas, 775 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), was still good law, and whether the facts leading to the charged conduct were relevant. The Court concluded he did satisfy the requirements of confession and avoidance in that his testimony equivocated about his commission of the charged conduct, Martinez still stands, and all the facts surrounding the charged conduct may be relevant in deciding whether a defensive issue has been raised. Consequently, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed and the case remanded for a harm analysis. View "Rodriguez v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Christopher Simms was convicted of aggravated assault for causing a fatal head-on car accident. At trial, Appellant acknowledged that he was speeding immediately before the accident, but testified that he dozed off or passed out, which then caused him to veer into oncoming traffic and resulted in the collision. Despite this testimony, the trial court refused Appellant’s request for a lesser-included-offense instruction on deadly conduct. Appellant contended such refusal violated his right to have a valid lesser-included offense submitted to the jury for consideration. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, because there was some evidence that would have allowed the jury to rationally conclude that the cause of the accident and the injury to the victim was Appellant’s involuntary loss of consciousness, rather than Appellant’s reckless speeding. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals which upheld the trial court’s ruling denying Appellant’s requested instruction, and remanded the case for a harm analysis. View "Simms v. Texas" on Justia Law