Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of August 18, 2008

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.


City of Fort Worth v. Shilling, No. 02-07-00410-CV (Aug. 21, 2008) (Holman, J., joined by Livingston and Dauphinot, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not err by denying Appellant's plea to the jurisdiction because a fact issue exists regarding the date on which Appellee “initiated” Appellant's grievance procedure as contemplated by government code section 554.006(a). The trial court did, however, err by denying Appellant's partial plea to the jurisdiction based on section 21.211 of the labor code.

In re Guardianship of Boatsright, No. 02-08-00070-CV (Aug. 21, 2008) (Livingston, J., joined by Gardner and Walker, JJ.).: Held: The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Appellant was incapacitated under the definition in section 601 of the probate code. Additionally, Appellant did not preserve error regarding her complaint that the trial court erred by refusing to accept a pretrial settlement agreement entered into by the parties. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that a limited guardianship of the person would not be in Appellant's best interest.

Dodson v. State, No. 02-07-00154-CR (Aug. 21, 2008) (Dauphinot, J., joined by McCoy, J.; Cayce, C.J., concurs without opinion).: Held: The State's proof did not run afoul of article 38.18(a) of the code of criminal procedure because the State offered more evidence than the testimony of Appellant and an additional witness. Furthermore, while the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the statement at issue was material because materiality is an issue of fact, materiality was never challenged or contested during the trial. The charge error was therefore harmless.

Teague v. State, No. 02-07-00161-CR (Aug. 21, 2008) (Dauphinot, J., joined by McCoy, J.; Cayce, C.J., concurs without opinion).: Held: The State's proof did not run afoul of article 38.18(a) of the code of criminal procedure because the State offered more evidence than the testimony of Appellant and an additional witness. Furthermore, while the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the statement at issue was material because materiality is an issue of fact, materiality was never challenged or contested during the trial. The charge error was therefore harmless.

Burrus v. State, Nos. 02-07-00251-CR, 02-07-00252-CR (Aug. 21, 2008) (mem. op.) (Holman, J., joined by Livingston and Dauphinot, JJ.).: Held: Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims fail under the standards articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). The trial court did not err by failing to set an evidentiary hearing on Appellant's motion for new trial or by allowing the motion for new trial to be overruled by operation of law because Appellant did not present her motion for new trial to the trial court. A review of the evidence for factual sufficiency is inappropriate with respect to the assessment of the punishment.

Morrison v. Christie, No. 02-07-00051-CV (Aug. 21, 2008) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Livingston and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: Appellants conveyed property to Appellee under a deed in lieu of foreclosure as payment on a note and not to secure a debt; because the conveyance did not create a mortgage, Appellee could sell the property without complying with the property code requirements for nonjudicial foreclosures.