Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of April 11, 2011

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.

Univ. of N. Tex. v. City of Denton,    No. 02-09-00395-CV    (Apr. 14, 2011)    (Livingston, C.J., joined by McCoy and Meier, JJ.).

Held:    The trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant summary judgment for Appellee because Appellee's suit against Appellant, a state agency, is barred by sovereign immunity as pleaded. Although Appellee's suit sought declaratory relief, immunity bars the suit because the declaration made by the trial court has the effect of establishing a right to damages against Appellant. Appellee could not circumvent sovereign immunity by characterizing a suit for money damages as a declaratory-judgment claim. City of Houston v. Williams, 216 S.W.3d 827, 828-29 (Tex. 2007).

Baylor All Saints Med. Ctr. v. Martin,    No. 02-10-00402-CV    (Apr. 14, 2011)   (McCoy, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and Gabriel, J.).

Held:   Appellee's expert report was inadequate to support her negligence claim against the hospital under civil practice and remedies code section 74.351 because it did not fulfill the required specificity as to what an ordinary prudent hospital would do under the same or similar circumstances, such as identifying specific policies and safeguards that should have been in place to protect Appellee from sexual assault after surgery.

Applin v. State,   Nos. 02-09-00089-CR,    02-09-00090-CR    (Apr. 14, 2011)   (Meier, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion; McCoy, J., concurs without opinion).  [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]

Held:   Even if the infractions that prompted the trial court to impose additional conditions to Appellant's community supervision--including statutorily authorized jail time--served in part as the same foundation that supports the State's petition for revocation of Appellant's community supervision, we conclude that there is no double jeopardy issue. To that end, a trial court does not err by imposing conditions of jail time for violations of community supervision and also finding true that these violations occurred for revocation purposes. Furthermore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and recognizing that the State need only prove that Appellant violated her community supervision conditions by a preponderance of the evidence as to any one condition imposed in the community supervision arrangement, we hold that the trial court did not err by finding Appellant had violated conditions of her community supervision.

Dissent:   A person placed on community supervision retains her constitutional right to due process, the touchstone of which is fundamental fairness. When a trial court orders incarceration as a condition of community supervision, the record must show that the probationer's rights of notice; opportunity to object, explain, and rebut; and representation by counsel were not abridged. When a trial court hears an allegation of a violation, continues the defendant on community supervision despite the violation, and later revokes the community supervision for the same violation, the trial court violates the defendant's right to due process.

The record in this case does not demonstrate that Appellant's constitutional rights were not abridged when she was incarcerated as a condition of community supervision or that the trial court did not rely on the same violation to both amend her conditions of community supervision and to revoke her community supervision. Further, the trial court's controlling oral pronouncement of sentence ordered that Appellant receive credit for time served in custody.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «