Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

The officer in this case encountered and arrested an intoxicated driver during a traffic stop he initiated to check the welfare of a passenger in the vehicle. The question this case presented for the Court of Criminal Appeals’ review was whether this particular traffic stop was a reasonable seizure under the community-caretaking doctrine. The Court held that it was. View "Byram v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Jeffrey Pruett was convicted of arson, and the jury made a deadly-weapon finding. The question before the Court of criminal Appeals was whether: the fire started by appellant was a deadly weapon when the fire was started with an accelerant in a residential neighborhood; was left unattended and uncontrolled by appellant; and was ultimately extinguished through the efforts of appellant’s neighbors and the Fort Worth Fire Department. Because the record supported a finding that the fire was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, the Court held that the deadly-weapon finding was proper. Consequently, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Pruett v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Henry Bullock, Jr. was convicted by a jury of theft of a furniture delivery truck, a third-degree felony. In his sole ground in his petition for discretionary review, appellant contended that the court of appeals erred by upholding the trial court’s decision that had declined his request for a lesser-included-offense jury instruction on attempted theft. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with appellant that there was more than a scintilla of evidence in the record from which a rational fact finder could have found that he was guilty only of attempted theft of the truck, rather than theft, and thus the court of appeals erred by concluding that the trial court properly declined to give the lesser-included-offense instruction. The Court reversed the court of appeals, and remanded this case to that court for it to consider in the first instance whether the trial court’s failure to give a lesser-included-offense instruction on attempted theft harmed appellant. View "Bullock v. Texas" on Justia Law

A jury convicted appellant LaJuan Bailey of felony failure to appear/bail jumping because she failed to appear as required for a pretrial court setting. The jury assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. On appeal, appellant claimed she received ineffective assistance by her trial counsel because he violated the attorney-client privilege by questioning her prior trial counsel about confidential communications with appellant without appellant’s consent. Appellant also alleged that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling her mistrial motion, which was based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for that violation of appellant’s attorney-client privilege. The Court of Appeals overruled her claims and affirmed the judgment and sentence. Upon reconsideration of its original opinion, it withdrew that opinion and issued an en banc opinion, which also affirmed the trial court’s judgment and sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review, which raised five grounds for review. After careful consideration of each of the grounds raised, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that the assertions made in ground one were encompassed by the other grounds. The Court therefore dismissed ground one as improvidently granted. The court of appeals did not err in holding that appellant failed to prove that her counsel provided ineffective assistance by divulging privileged communications. View "Bailey v. Texas" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Patrick Shay was convicted of improper photography or visual recording and sentenced to two years’ confinement, the maximum confinement permitted for the state-jail felony. In consideration for Shay’s guilty plea, the State agreed not to file aggravated sexual assault or child pornography charges surrounding the same criminal episode. Shay’s applied for habeas relief, using as grounds the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion in "Thompson v. Texas," which held that a portion of the former improper photography or visual recording statute—specifically, Texas Penal Code section 21.15(b)(1) - was facially unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Section 21.15(b)(1) formed the basis of Shay’s conviction. The State and the habeas judge recommended that the Court of Criminal Appeals grant Shay relief under "Thompson." The Court, in turn, ordered Shay’s application be filed and set to determine whether an applicant, who negotiates a very favorable plea agreement resulting in a conviction for an offense later held to be unconstitutional, is estopped from challenging the conviction on the basis of its unconstitutionality. The Court held that estoppel does not bar an applicant for habeas relief from seeking habeas relief on a statute subsequently declared facially unconstitutional. The Court accordingly set aside Shay’s conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court to dismiss the indictment. View "Ex parte Patrick Taylor Shay" on Justia Law

Appellant Stacy Cary was convicted by a jury of six counts of bribery, one count of money laundering, and one count of engaging in organized criminal activity. Her sentence was probated, but she was ordered to serve 30 days’ confinement as a condition of her probation. A split panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed her convictions. She alleged on appeal that the evidence was legally insufficient to support her convictions, and that the trial court reversibly erred when it excluded certain evidence. Because the Court of Criminal Appeals sustained her first and fourth grounds (regarding insufficiency of the evidence), the Court will reversed and rendered an acquittal on each count and did not reach the other three grounds for review. View "Cary v. Texas" on Justia Law

David Cary was convicted by a jury of six counts of bribery, one count of money laundering, and one count of engaging in organized criminal activity. His punishment was given fourteen years’ confinement on each count to run concurrently with one day credit. He appealed the convictions, and a unanimous panel of the court of appeals found that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, entering an acquittal on each count. The issue in this case for the Court of Criminal Appeals' review was whether the court of appeals misapplied the standard for legal sufficiency. The Court concluded that it did not, and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Cary v. Texas" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Appellant Alvin Henry Jr. of evading arrest with a motor vehicle. At the punishment stage of trial, the jury found that Henry was previously convicted of two felony offenses, resulting in an enhanced sentence of sixty years’ imprisonment. Henry appealed, arguing that the State, during punishment, “failed to prove that he was the same person who had committed the extraneous offenses introduced during punishment, including the two prior felony offenses used to increase his range of punishment.” The court of appeals affirmed the trial court. And finding no reversible error, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals. View "Henry v. Texas" on Justia Law

In July 2013, a jury convicted appellant Albert Love, Jr. of capital murder for the 2011 murders of Keenan Hubert and Tyus Sneed during the same criminal transaction. He received the death penalty. Appellant raised eleven points of error on automatic appeal. After reviewing those alleged errors, the Court of Criminal Appeals found appellant’s sixth point of error, regarding the warrantless seizure of his text messages, to have merit. Consequently, the Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and sentence of death, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Love v. Texas" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Appellant Alvin Peter Henry Jr. of evading arrest with a motor vehicle. At the punishment stage of trial, the jury found that Henry was previously convicted of two felony offenses, resulting in an enhanced sentence of sixty years’ imprisonment. Henry appealed, arguing that the State, during punishment, “failed to prove that he was the same person who had committed the extraneous offenses introduced during punishment, including the two prior felony offenses used to increase his range of punishment.” The court of appeals found that the State had presented sufficient evidence to link Henry to the prior convictions used to enhance his punishment and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Henry challenged the sufficiency ruling to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Finding the evidence sufficient to support Henry's conviction, the Court affirmed the enhancement allegations. View "Henry v. Texas" on Justia Law