Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of April 05, 2010

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.

Romo v. State,    Nos. 02-09-00153-CR,    02-09-00154-CR,    02-09-00155-CR   (Apr. 8, 2010)   (McCoy, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Dauphinot, J., concurs without opinion).

Held:   Drug dog sniffs of Appellant’s garage door and backyard fence were not searches under the Fourth Amendment or the Texas constitution because the dog sniffed areas that were not protected from observation by passersby and because Appellant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the odor of marihuana coming from his backyard. The search warrant affidavit was sufficient to support a probable cause determination because it specifically stated that the drug dog alerted two separate times to the backyard fence, and it was also supported by other facts confirmed and recited prior to the officer’s statements about what he saw by looking through the fence slats.

Estate of Frederick,   No. 02-09-00133-CV    (April 8, 2010)   (Dauphinot, J., joined by Livingston and McCoy, JJ).

Held:   In this probate proceeding, the trial court assessed costs and attorney ad litem fees against Appellant rather than against her son’s estate. The trial court was not required by probate code section 34A to assess ad litem costs against the estate, and the court did not abuse its discretion by assessing costs against Appellant.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «