Second Court of Appeals | Case December

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of May 03, 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.

Dahlem v. State, No. 02-08-00334-CR (May 6, 2010) (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston, C.J.; Dauphinot, J., concurs with opinion). [Note: both opinions at the same link.]: Held: After an officer saw a marihuana pipe in plain view on Appellant’s boat and was told by a passenger in Appellant’s boat that she possessed marihuana, the officer could lawfully search for additional marihuana in all containers on the boat that might contain the object of the search, and Appellant’s wallet could have contained additional marihuana. The trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. Moreover, a written order denying Appellant’s motion to suppress was not required for Appellant to preserve error.; Concurrence: To be consistent with this court’s en banc majority opinion in Cox v. State, we should hold that the docket entry initialed by the trial judge and denying a motion to suppress, with no oral ruling on the record and no findings of fact or conclusions of law, is insufficient to preserve Appellant’s complaint.

Pearson v. Stewart, No. 02-09-00123-CV (May 6, 2010) (Livingston, C.J., joined by Gardner and Walker, JJ.).: Held: Held: Although the trial court erred by holding that section 156.401, which applies to modification SAPCRs, prohibited the court from considering a rule 329b(g) motion to modify the agreed decree in this original SAPCR, the trial court nevertheless did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to modify because Pearson failed to meet her burden of proving that the parties were mistaken in calculating the agreed child support. Additionally, the trial court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions against Pearson personally because the conduct for which sanctions were imposed was her counsel’s conduct, and there is no evidence that she had any involvement with that conduct other than reliance on his representation.