Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of June 21, 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.

Witkovsky v. State, No. 02-09-00259-CR (June 24, 2010) (Op. on PDR) (Meier, J., joined by Walker and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: In contravention of code of criminal procedure article 42.12, section 10(a)’s requirement that only the judge may alter conditions of community supervision, Slawson unilaterally modified Appellant’s condition of community supervision requiring that he attend and successfully complete a sex offender treatment program when she transferred him from Clark’s sex offender treatment program to Strain’s sex offender treatment program. The trial court therefore abused its discretion by revoking Appellant’s community supervision on the basis of his failure to successfully complete Strain’s sex offender treatment program.

Menefee v. Medlen, No. 02-09-00440-CV (June 24, 2010) (Walker, J., joined by Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not err by denying Menefee’s motion to dismiss based on section 101.106(f) of the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) because he did not satisfy his burden to show that the Medlens’ suit could have been brought under the TTCA against Menefee’s employer, the City of Fort Worth.

In re Salazar, No. 02-09-00405-CV (June 25, 2010) (Gardner, J., joined by Dauphinot and Meier, JJ.).: Held: Petition for writ of mandamus conditionally granted where the trial court abused its discretion by not following all mandates of rule 12 of the rules of civil procedure. The trial court found that the challenged attorneys did not meet their burden of proof under rule 12, but the trial court did not strike the pleadings filed by the challenged attorneys or bar the attorneys from participating in the cause.