Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of April 12, 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.

Hilburn v. State,    No. 02-08-00276-CR    (April 15, 2010)    (Gardner, J., joined by Dauphinot and Walker, JJ.).

Held:   The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Appellant caused a Fort Worth Police Officer’s death “by driving his vehicle into and against” the officer’s patrol car and that Appellant’s vehicle constituted a deadly weapon. Further, the variance, if any, between the indictment and the proof at trial was not material.

Gallemore v. State,    No. 02-08-00481-CR    (April 15, 2010)    (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston and Dauphinot, JJ.).

Held: Double jeopardy did not bar a second proceeding against Appellant following the trial court’s dismissal of the first proceeding against Appellant. The 271st District Court does not have jurisdiction over misdemeanors. Thus, because the indictment in the first proceeding did not allege a felony, the 271st District Court did not have jurisdiction and jeopardy did not attach. Further, the jurisdictional defect in the first proceeding’s indictment presented manifest necessity justifying the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial.

Miller v. State,    Nos. 02-08-00458-CR, 02-08-00459-CR, 02-08-00460-CR, 02-08-00461-CR    (April 15, 2010)    (Meier, J., joined by Dauphinot and McCoy, JJ.).

Held:   The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant’s motions to suppress evidence. Appellant’s arrest was valid because he committed at least one offense in the arresting officers’ presence, and Appellant did not identify the evidence he sought to exclude had his motions to suppress been successful. Further, investigators did not make improper promises to Appellant in an effort to coerce his confession.

Timms v. State,   Nos. 02-09-00306-CR, 02-09-00307-CR, 02-09-00308-CR, 02-09-00309-CR    (April 15, 2010)    (Livingston, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Dauphinot, J., concurs with opinion).  [Note: Each link contains both opinions in one document.]

Held:    Appellant failed to preserve his complaint that his sentences are excessive by failing to raise the issue in the trial court.

Concurrence:    It is unclear whether Appellant had to preserve his sentencing complaint; regardless, he failed to prove that his sentences are disproportionate or cruel and unusual.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «