Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of November 29, 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.

In re T.T.F., No. 02-09-00382-CV (Dec. 2, 2010) (Gardner, J., joined by Dauphinot and Walker, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not violate Appellant's procedural due process rights. In addition, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the termination of Appellant's parental rights.
State v. Sanavongxay, No. 02-10-00032-CR (Dec. 2, 2010) (Gardner, J.; Livingston, C.J., concurs with opinion; Walker, J., concurs with opinion).: Held: The court does not have jurisdiction over the State's appeal because the trial court has not memorialized in written orders its ruling on Appellee's motions to suppress and for continuance.; Concurrence: Although this court denied the prior original proceeding filed by the State, any implication by the trial judge that only a "suppression" order based on police misconduct is appealable by the State is incorrect. Once the trial court signs a written order excluding evidence, even for a procedural reason, that order is appealable by the State. If the trial court makes such a ruling and refuses to sign a written order, the State may file an original proceeding seeking to compel the trial court to reduce the order to writing so that the State may appeal.; Concurrence: The trial court has not held a suppression hearing. Once the trial court holds a hearing on the issue of whether the DNA evidence should be excluded for the State=s alleged failure to timely produce it, the trial court will have a reasonable time to enter an order reflecting its ruling on the motion to suppress, and if the trial court suppresses the DNA evidence, the State may then appeal that ruling.