Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

In the Interest of B.B.R., No. 02-0004-399 (Mar. 2, 2006) (McCoy, J., joined by Dauphinot and Walker, JJ.).: Held: Biological father had standing to sue adoption agency for attorney's fees in his parentage action because, although father did not wish to relinquish his parental rights, mother had named the agency as the baby's managing conservator and the agency had delivered the baby to out-of-state prospective adoptive parents. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees against adoption agency.
Barron v. Vanier, No. 02-0005-045 (Mar. 2, 2006) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and McCoy, J.).: Held: The trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s motion for continuance to develop evidence to challenge Appellees’ special appearances.
Alexander v. Lockheed Martin Corp., Self Insured, No. 02-0005-081 (Mar. 2, 2006) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Walker and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: In this worker’s compensation case, the contested case hearing officer found that Appellant did have an injury but that the injury did not occur in the course and scope of employment. There is no evidence that Appellee appealed the finding that there was an injury, so that issue was not properly before the trial court. “Course and scope” is a compensability issue, which Appellee waived its right to contest by not raising it within the statutory sixty-day deadline. Therefore, Appellant had a compensable claim.
McCown v. State, No. 02-0004-418, 02-04-00440-CR (Mar. 2, 2006) (McCoy, J., joined by Cayce C.J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).: Held: The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support Appellant’s convictions for failure to stop and render aid and driving while intoxicated. Appellant failed to stop and render aid to the driver of the other automobile involved in the accident, and a reasonable person would or should have anticipated that the collision would result in injury to the other driver. Additionally, Appellant’s breath smelled of alcohol, and he left the scene of the accident with a staggering gait.; Dissent: Although the majority opinion affirming Appellant’s conviction for the offense of failure to stop and render aid correctly tracks the applicable statutes, it nevertheless conflicts with State v. Stevenson, 958 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
Jones v. State, No. 02-0005-026 (Mar. 2, 2006) (Livingston, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Walker, J., dissents with opinion).: Held: The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove that Appellant possessed 400 or more grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Under section 481.002(49) of the health and safety code, any substance that is added to or mixed with a controlled substance may be added to the drug’s aggregate weight; therefore, the bleach can be included in the aggregate weight of the liquid methamphetamine. The trial court’s failure to include an accomplice witness instruction was harmless.; Dissent: The layer of bleach, which was separate and distinct from the layer of methamphetamine, did not intermingle with the methamphetamine or increase the bulk or quantity of the methamphetamine. Therefore, the bleach did not meet the statutory definition of an adulterant or dilutant. Because the State failed to put forth any evidence that the layer of methamphetamine weighed 400 grams or more, the State failed to prove that Appellant possessed 400 or more grams of methamphetamine. Consequently, the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction.

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of February 27, 2006