Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

In an application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, Applicant Danny Lane challenged his 2007 conviction for failing to comply with sex-offender-registration requirements on five grounds: (1) actual innocence; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) involuntary plea; (4) due process violation; and (5) no evidence. Though Applicant raised several grounds for relief, the underlying basis for all of his claims was the same: that, unbeknownst to him at the time of his guilty plea, he was not actually required to register as a sex offender because, although he was convicted of aggravated rape in 1982, that conviction was later “set aside” by the convicting court upon his successful completion of probation through a “judicial clemency” order. In support of his position, Applicant relied on a decision from the Sixth Court of Appeals, issued after his guilty plea in this case, interpreting the relevant statutes to mean that a similarly situated individual had no duty to register and thus could not be guilty of failing to register as a sex offender. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed with the habeas court's recommendation to grant relief based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel resulting in an involuntary plea, or under a theory of actual innocence / no evidence. The Court concluded that the law was unsettled as to whether Applicant had a duty to register as a sex offender following the trial court’s grant of judicial clemency. Thus, trial counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to further investigate that issue when further investigation would not have yielded any clear answer under the law. The Court concluded the governing statutes in Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 62 meant that Applicant’s 1982 aggravated rape conviction obligated him to register as a sex offender, notwithstanding the trial court’s order granting him judicial clemency under former Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.12, Section 7. Relief was denied on all claims. View "Ex parte Danny Lane" on Justia Law

In 1998, applicant Rodney Reed was convicted by jury of the capital murder of nineteen-year-old Stacey Lee Stites. The indictment alleged that in April 1996, Reed strangled Stacey to death in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault. In the years that followed, continuing through this proceeding, Reed has made multiple efforts to have his capital murder conviction overturned. He primarily advanced the theory that he was innocent of Stacey’s murder —specifically, that the biological evidence linking him to Stacey’s body was deposited there because he and Stacey were in a consensual sexual relationship and that Stacey was actually killed by her jealous and domineering fiance, Jimmy Fennell. After review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found Reed's latest attempts to overturn his conviction failed under Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), and procedurally under Article 11.071, Section 5(a)(2) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, the Court denied relief and dismissed any remaining claims as abuses of the writ. View "Ex parte Rodney Reed" on Justia Law

On April 19, 2018 in Forth Worth, Appellant Terry King assaulted a twelve-year-old girl who was on her way to the school bus. At all times relevant to this case, Appellant was working as a truck driver, operating a semi-tractor trailor (hereinafter, “truck”) owned by his employer, John Feltman. Due to the nature of his work as a long-haul truck driver, Appellant lived out of the truck while working on the road. In July 2018, Appellant was arrested in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma near the truck he drove. On the same day, the Oklahoma police searched the truck pursuant to a warrant. During the search, detectives found Appellant’s cell phone and intended to seize it, but inadvertently left the cell phone in the truck. The gathered evidence, minus the cell phone, was transported to the Fort Worth Police Department. Upon realizing the cell phone was missing, Fort Worth Police Detective Pat Henz contacted the truck owner, Feltman, and asked him to retrieve the phone and send it to the police department. Upon receipt on August 9, 2018, a search warrant for the contents of the cell phone was issued and executed. Child pornography was found on the cell phone. The issue this case presented for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was whether an employee retained standing to contest a search or seizure in his work vehicle several days after he was arrested and after the vehicle was returned to his employer. To this, the Court responded "possibly." But based on the facts of this case, the Court found Appellant did not meet his burden to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy as would confer standing. View "King v. Texas" on Justia Law

In 2017, after Maria Delcarman Sosa-Esparza was indicted for a felony offense, she entered into a bail bond agreement with Appellant Maxie Green, doing business as A to Z Bail Bonds. Appellant paid a $25,000 bond so that Sosa-Esparza could be released from jail. A condition of the trial court in setting a bond amount was an assurance that Sosa-Esparza would appear for all of her court settings. But on March 1, 2019, Sosa-Esparza failed to appear for her pretrial conference. The trial court then signed a judgment nisi that provisionally forfeited the $25,000 bond. The judgment nisi stated that Sosa-Esparza’s name was “distinctly called at the courtroom door. Defendant was given reasonable time to appear after her name was called, but she did not appear.” The judgment nisi also provided that the judgment would be made final unless good cause could be shown for why Sosa-Esparza failed to appear. Appellant argued, among other things, that because the judgment nisi stated that the defendant’s name was called at the courtROOM door, the State’s evidence failed to conclusively establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether her name was properly called at the courtHOUSE door. (emphasis added). The issue this case presented for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was whether, for purposes of summary judgment in a bond forfeiture case, providing conclusive proof that the name of the defendant on bond was distinctly called at the door of the courtROOM establishes the element that “[t]he name of the defendant shall be called distinctly at the courthouse door[.]” To this, the Court held that it did: "This holding is founded on well-established precedent from this Court and the courts of appeals recognizing that calling the defendant’s name at the courtroom door constitutes substantial compliance with the requirements of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 22.02." View "Green v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Kevin Sheffield couldn't make bond and was placed into custody August 2019. While there, Appellant filed several pro se documents with the trial court even though he had appointed counsel. In his first letter, Appellant requested an examining trial and a personal recognizance (PR) bond until the examining trial could take place. Appellant also filed a pro se motion September 19 for a speedy trial and for discharge under article 28.061. Appellant followed the motion September 20 with another pro se letter, reasserting his requests for a speedy trial, a speedy examining trial, and a PR bond until the examining trial. On September 26, a grand jury returned a five-count indictment alleging possession, with intent to deliver, first degree felony amounts of methamphetamine and heroin; possession of a first degree felony amount of cocaine; evading arrest in a vehicle; and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On September 30, the trial court entered its pre-trial scheduling order, setting jury trial for January 23, 2020. In January, although represented by counsel, Appellant sent a pro se letter seeking a hearing on a motion for discovery and a motion for speedy trial. Proceedings were briefly paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic. By May 12, a hearing was held in which the trial court allowed Appellant to represent himself but keep standby counsel. By May 18, Appellant filed a pro se motion seeking release. This motion was ultimately denied, leading to Appellant's request for habeas relief. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded Appellant's speedy trial claim was not cognizable under Texas law in pretrial proceedings: "because pretrial habeas corpus litigation would not vindicate the speedy trial right and would effectively undermine that right instead. Vindication of the speedy trial right must be had through a motion to dismiss followed by appeal after trial if the motion is wrongly denied. If trial and appeal are indefinitely postponed, mandamus, not pretrial habeas, is available." View "Ex parte Sheffield" on Justia Law

Judge George Gallagher, elected judge for the 396th District Court in the Eighth Administrative Judicial Region of Texas, was specifically assigned by Presiding Judge Mary Murphy of the First Administrative Judicial Region to preside over Texas v. Paxton in the 416th District Court in the First Administrative Judicial Region in July 2015. The issue before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, on mandamus, was whether Judge Gallagher had the constitutional and statutory authority to preside over Texas v. Paxton when he granted a change of venue to Harris County in April of 2017. To this, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that he did, regardless of any other assignment orders that were issued by Presiding Judge David Evans. The Court, therefore, conditionally granted the State’s petition for writ of mandamus. View "In re Texas, ex rel. Wice" on Justia Law

Appellant Lance Taylor was convicted of murder and tampering with evidence. On appeal, he complained that he was denied his right to a speedy trial. The Court of Appeals found that it was unable to review the issue “as the trial court did not conduct a meaningful hearing.” Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review arguing, inter alia, that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to conduct a de novo review. To this, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed: "The Court of Appeals misunderstood this case law to mean that some type of specially-designated 'Speedy Trial Hearing' is required before an appellate court can weigh the Barker factors. But neither this Court nor the lower courts have required that. Instead, the only requirement is that the relevant information be in the record – the length of the delay, reason for the delay, assertion of the right, and prejudice." In this case, the record showed the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and Appellant’s assertion of the right. The only thing the record might not show was whether and what type of prejudice Appellant suffered. "But that potential deficiency does not prevent an appellate court from weighing the factors; it merely affects how they will be weighed." The appellate court's judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Taylor v. Texas" on Justia Law

After Appellant Cameron Moon was certified in juvenile court to stand trial as an adult, the juvenile court ordered his case transferred to the district court for adult criminal proceedings. Appellant then filed a pretrial application of writ of habeas corpus challenging the transfer. The district court denied relief, so Appellant took an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order denying relief, concluding the State had failed to establish the necessary statutory criteria for waiver of juvenile jurisdiction and transfer into the adult criminal court. As a result, the appellate court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the prosecution for lack of jurisdiction. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State's petition for discretionary review to consider several issues related to the juvenile court's transfer order including whether the court of appeals erred to hold that such a challenge was even cognizable in pretrial habeas. However, the Court concluded that, even if Appellant’s claims were cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding, the court of appeals lacked the authority to entertain Appellant’s interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded to that court for an order dismissing Appellant’s appeal as premature. View "Ex parte Moon" on Justia Law

After legally detaining Appellant James Massey for lack of a proper registration sticker on his truck, an officer conducted an investigative pat-down search of Appellant. When Appellant forcefully resisted that search, the officer tased and handcuffed him. The officer subsequently discovered methamphetamine on the ground near where Appellant had been standing. Appellant moved to suppress the methamphetamine. In response to that motion, the trial court decided that the officer’s investigative pat-down search (a "Terry" search) was illegal. But the trial court nevertheless concluded that the taint of the illegal Terry search was attenuated by Appellant’s commission of the dual offenses of resisting search and evading detention. As a result, the trial court denied his motion. The court of appeals reversed, finding Appellant’s commission of resisting search and evading detention in response to the officer’s unlawful pat-down did not constitute “a severe departure from the common, if regrettable, range of responses” that should be expected. It therefore concluded that these offenses did not “constitute intervening circumstances” for purposes of an attenuation-of-taint analysis. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals determined the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion to suppress the methamphetamine. Accordingly, the court of appeals judgment was reversed. View "Massey v. Texas" on Justia Law

Ronald Ray, the victim in this case, was engaged in a tumultuous, on-again-off-again relationship with Appellant Robert Hart’s adult daughter, Stephanie. According to Stephanie, the relationship was one filled with violent abuse. On September 22, 2016, shortly before 1 p.m., Ray showed up unannounced in the street outside the Hart family home. Inside the home at the time were Appellant, his wife Elizabeth, Stephanie, and his other daughter. The family’s home had a security camera with a viewing monitor inside. Ray parked his vehicle across the street, got out, removed his shirt, and began smoking a cigarette. Panicked, the girls told their father that Ray was outside. In video footage, Ray was seen standing next to the open driver-side door of his car in the street. Appellant walked towards Ray while holding a gun at his side. Appellant and Ray briefly yell at one another, but it was unknown what exactly was said. Within seconds, Appellant pointed the pistol at Ray, who put his hands up and shrugged his shoulders. Appellant then almost immediately began firing at Ray, who ran towards the back of his vehicle and around to the passenger side. After pacing for a few seconds, Ray collapsed near the back of his vehicle. Appellant was ultimately convicted of murder, and he appealed, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for declining the trial court’s offer to include a sudden-passion jury instruction in the punishment-phase charge. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals determined the existing direct-appeal record was inadequately developed. "Had the record contained a motion for new trial raising an ineffectiveness claim, counsel would have had an opportunity to explain why he declined the sudden-passion instruction. Such an explanation could have contained a plausible strategic reason for counsel’s decision." Therefore, based on the trial court record, the Court of Criminal Appeals could not hold that counsel’s decision to decline the sudden-passion instruction was so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it. The Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment granting Appellant a new punishment trial, and the case was remanded to that court for further proceedings. View "Hart v. Texas" on Justia Law