Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

A Texas man, Brian Christopher Reed, was charged with sexual assault for allegedly penetrating the victim's sexual organ with his own without her consent. At trial, the jury convicted him of a lesser-included offense of attempted sexual assault. The jury charge for the lesser offense did not limit the means of penetration to his sexual organ, and the charge's definition of sexual assault mentioned that penetration could be committed "by any means." The jury also heard some evidence that Reed may have used his mouth, not his sexual organ. The court of appeals reversed the conviction, stating that the jury charge was erroneous and caused egregious harm to Reed because it expanded the theory of liability beyond the language of the indictment. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals' finding of egregious harm. The Court noted that while there was conflicting evidence as to whether Reed used his sexual organ or his mouth, the main issue in the case revolved around consent, not the means of penetration. The Court also emphasized that neither the prosecution nor the defense suggested to the jury that it could convict Reed if it thought he used his mouth. The Court thus concluded that the possibility that the jury charge error led the jury to find the defendant guilty of attempting to sexually assault the victim with his mouth instead of his sexual organ was "hypothetical at best." As such, the Court reversed the court of appeals' decision and remanded the case back to the court of appeals to consider Reed's remaining issues. View "REED V. STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Roberto Medina Flores, was convicted of second-degree felony sexual assault and later filed a motion for a new trial. The trial court had 75 days to rule on the motion, but due to the COVID-19 emergency order, the court extended the deadline. The trial court held a hearing and denied the motion for a new trial. Flores appealed, and the court of appeals found the trial court erred in extending the deadline, as this 75-day period is jurisdictional, not procedural, and a trial court cannot create jurisdiction for itself where it would otherwise be absent, even based on an Emergency Order. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas unanimously agreed with the court of appeals, stating that the requirement for a court to have jurisdiction is not procedural and the 75-day jurisdictional deadline cannot be suspended. The trial court did not have the authority to preside over the hearing on the motion for a new trial, and its ruling is void. Therefore, the appellant's motion for a new trial was overruled by operation of law when the 75-day plenary period expired. The Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "FLORES v. THE STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

The Appellants in consolidated cases filed pretrial writs of habeas corpus challenging the facial constitutionality of portions of the statutes they were charged under. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to decide the cognizability of their pretrial claims and the meaning of “immediate release”—release from what? The Court held the facial challenges were cognizable in a pretrial writ of habeas corpus if a grant of relief would result in immediate release from prosecution for an alleged offense. Release from prosecution for every alleged offense is not required. In Appellant Tonya Couch's case, the claim was not cognizable: if her indictments alleged one offense committed via four different, alternative, statutory manner and means, she challenged the constitutionality of two of those purported manner and means in her habeas application, leaving two unchallenged. If she were granted relief, her single-count indictment would still stand, and trial on it could still proceed. A grant of relief on her claim would not result in her release from prosecution for the offense alleged in her indictment. In Appellant Glenda Hammons’ case, her claim was cognizable because she challenged the constitutionality of the statute defining two counts of her three-count indictment. If she were granted relief, she would be released from prosecution for two alleged offenses, and trial on those counts could not proceed though trial on the third one could. View "Ex parte Couch, Hammons" on Justia Law

The Office of Capital and Forensic Writs (OCFW) sought and received two sealed ex parte orders from the District Court of Jones County on behalf of Real Party in Interest, Dillion Compton. One order compelled Relator University of Texas Medical Branch-Galveston (UTMB) to conduct brain imaging on the Real Party in Interest and directed the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to arrange transportation for that brain imaging. The other order (which was no longer at issue), compelled TDCJ to provide certain confidential records to OCFW. OCFW sought the orders pursuant to its post-conviction investigation into the Real Party in Interest’s capital murder conviction and sentence. UTMB and TDCJ challenged the ex parte orders by filing a motion to set aside the discovery orders in the trial court. After initially granting the motion to set aside the discovery orders and then holding a hearing, the trial court ultimately denied the motion to set aside the discovery orders and entered an order reinstating the original ex parte orders. Relator sought leave from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to petition for mandamus relief: to vacate the remaining ex parte order regarding the brain imaging and transportation for the brain imaging of the Real Party in Interest. Because the trial court was without authority to enter the order at issue ex parte, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted Relator’s motion for leave to file and conditionally granted mandamus relief. View "In re University of Texas Medical Branch-Galveston" on Justia Law

Appellant Francisco De la Rosa was tried by jury for the non-consensual sexual assault and sexual assault of a child. The body of Appellant’s indictment charged him with three counts of sexual assault for non-consensual contact between his sexual organ and that of "LAM," and the abstract portion of the jury charge defined “sexual assault of a child” in terms of non-consensual sexual contact. The indictment’s caption called the counts sexual assault of a child, its application paragraph authorized conviction for sexual assault of a child, and the case was tried as if it were such a case. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to decide whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the evidence was legally sufficient to uphold the convictions. To this, the Court concluded the appellate court did, reversed the lower court’s judgments and entered a judgment of acquittal for each count of sexual assault. View "De La Rosa v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant DeSean McPherson was convicted of tampering, but the court of appeals agreed with him that the evidence of concealment was legally insufficient. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to decide whether the court of appeals misapplied the standard of review. To this, the Court found that it did: it re-weighed the evidence, rationalized its result by hypothesizing a weaker case than that presented in the record, and overlooked dispositive distinctions between this case and Stahmann v. Texas, 602 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). The Court therefore reversed the appellate court's judgment and affirmed that of the trial court. View "McPherson v. Texas" on Justia Law

The United States Supreme Court remanded this case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider Applicant Areli Escobar’s false-testimony claim in light of the State’s confession of error. After receiving a motion suggesting that the parties had evidence not previously considered in these habeas proceedings, the Texas Court held the case for 30 days to allow supplementation of the record. Applicant filed supplemental materials with a cover sheet that listed five items. He failed to comply with the applicable appellate rule because he did not explain the significance of any of these items or why they could not have been filed earlier, but the Court nevertheless considered the new material. Upon consideration, the Court concluded the new material did not change its original assessment of Applicant’s false-testimony claim. View "Ex parte Areli Escobar" on Justia Law

In July 2021, Appellant Lucas Vieira was indicted for aggravated assault by threat while acting as a public servant. The indictment alleged that the offense occurred on or about July 7, 2019. Appellant filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, claiming the indictment was time-barred because it was filed more than two years after the date of the offense. The trial court denied Appellant’s habeas application, and Appellant appealed. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that the indictment was not brought within the applicable two-year statute of limitations, and reversed judgments of the courts below. View "Ex parte Lucas Vieira" on Justia Law

Darrell David was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. David failed to appear at a trial setting, and a judgment nisi was entered for the forfeiture of a $10,000 bond. A final judgment of forfeiture was signed, forfeiting the bond and requiring the payment of $100 interest, $396 in court costs, and any reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the county for the return of the criminal defendant. The surety (Continental Heritage) filed a motion to correct costs. The motion contended the collection of civil filing fees was not authorized in bond forfeiture proceedings, identifying specific fees it claimed it should not have to pay, which were most of the fees in the bill of costs. The motion contended that authority to dispute costs was conferred by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 103.008. The parties litigated the issue before the trial court. The State took the position that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revise costs under Article 103.008 and also argued that the costs were legitimate. The surety took the position that the trial court had jurisdiction to address the costs and that it should have to pay only some of the court costs, which the surety believed totaled $94. The trial court ruled that it had jurisdiction to address the issue of court costs, but it denied the surety’s motion to revise the costs. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that a surety can be liable—and is generally liable—for civil filing fees as court costs in a bond-forfeiture action when the State prevails. "But the surety is not liable for a filing fee that the State is entirely exempt from paying unless a statute nevertheless requires a civil defendant to pay the fee if the State prevails. The surety also cannot be required to pay a fee that improperly duplicates a fee already charged." The Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Continental Heritage Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant Noel Huggins pled pro se guilty to possession of methamphetamine and was sentenced by the trial court to 18 years in prison. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeal granted review to decide whether his right to counsel was violated. Appellant’s state-jail, possession charge was enhanced with two prior felonies. Appellant doubted the validity of the enhancement allegations, and that doubt helped fuel his on-again/off-again self-representation. He represented himself at the beginning and the end of his case, but he was otherwise represented by two attorneys appointed in succession during most of the approximately 22 months that his case was pending in the trial court. After his trial date was reached during his second period of self- representation and while a venire was standing by, he announced that he would plead guilty and asked for representation again, but the trial court refused to appoint a third attorney. Appellant argued that his two waivers of counsel were not made knowingly and intelligently because the trial court did not admonish him about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and the trial court denied him his statutory right to withdraw his waiver of the right to counsel under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 1.051(h). The court of appeals said the trial court was not required to admonish Appellant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation because he did not contest his guilt. The court then looked at whether Appellant’s waiver of counsel was intelligent, knowing, and voluntary. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the court of appeals concluded that it was. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded Appellant's right to counsel was not violated. View "Huggins v. Texas" on Justia Law