GRANTED PDRS THROUGH 12/11/02
PETITIONS GRANTED THIS WEEK
(NO PETITIONS WERE GRANTED LAST WEEK)
02-0937 WALLACE, ROBERT MARVIN 12/11/02 A LAMAR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION RESULTED FROM THE DENIAL OF A HEARING ON THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WHEN PETITIONER’S MOTION DEMONSTRATED THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXISTED THAT COULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE GRANTING OF A NEW TRIAL.
02-1287 MANNING, RAYMOND 12/11/02 S AUSTIN MANSLAUGHTER
1. WAS THE TRIAL COURT’S TEX. R. EVID. 403 RULING OUTSIDE THE ZONE OF REASONABLE DISAGREEMENT?
2. IS THE OVERRULING OF A DEFENDANT’S RULE 403 OBJECTION HARMFUL UNDER TRAP 44.2(b) FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THE CHALLENGED EVIDENCE “WAS THE BEST EVIDENCE THE STATE HAD TO SUPPORT” AN ALLEGATION IN THE INDICTMENT?
02-1543
02-1545 GHARBI, GHOLAMERZA 12/11/02 A DALLAS VIOLATING PROTECTIVE ORDER
3. THE STATE ALLEGED THAT EVELYN GHARBI WAS A PROTECTED PERSON AND FAILED TO OFFER ANY EVIDENCE THAT EVELYN GHARBI WAS A PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL IN THE FINAL ORDER IN CAUSE NUMBER CV0000285-V, ISSUED BY THE 292nd DISTRICT COURT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.
ALPHABETICAL LISTING WITHOUT ISSUES, WITH COURT OF APPEALS CITE
00-2115 AGUIRRE-MATA, MARCELINO 05/30/01 A HARRIS 026 922
01-2066/7 ALDRICH, DANA MICHELLE 02/13/02 A DALLAS 053 460
02-0435 ALONZO, ALEXANDER 07/31/02 S HARRIS 067 346
02-0070 ARMENDARIZ, JOSE FRANCO 06/19/02 S ECTOR 063 572
01-1670 ARROYO, TONY 06/19/02 A BEXAR 064 810
02-1251 BAGHERI, HOSSEIN 11/06/02 S BEXAR
01-2189 BAILEY, HAROLD WAYNE 03/27/02 A HARRIS
02-1354 BALQUE, MICHAEL ADONDUS 11/27/02 S HARRIS
01-0056 BAYLESS, DEANNEE ANN 05/16/01 A HUNT
01-0519 BEAL, DANIEL LOUIS 09/12/01 A HARRIS 035 677
02-0723 BLUITT, MAURICE 10/02/02 S TARRANT 070 901
01-1748/9 BROWDER, BRUCE 09/11/02 S TARRANT
01-2475 BROWN, HENRY 04/10/02 A SMITH
02-0919 CARROLL, TIMOTHY EARL 10/23/02 A POLK 074 414
01-2012/6 CASTENEDA, OCTOVIO 02/06/02 A HIDALGO 055 729
02-0421 CATES, JOHNNY WELDON II 09/11/02 A HARRIS 066 404
01-0542 CHAVEZ, RICHARD, JR. 09/12/01 S POTTER 034 692
01-2476/7 COLBERT, DERORY DEWAYNE 04/10/02 S DALLAS 056 857
02-0254 DOE, JOHN 06/05/02 S DALLAS 061 99
01-1733 DRAGOO, RANDY LEE 03/06/02 S TARRANT
01-1794 DYAR, BRADLEY ROBERT 12/05/01 A BASTROP
02-0400 FAISST, LINDSAY M. 07/31/02 A SMITH
01-2156 FREEMAN, CONSUELO 03/27/02 S NUECES
02-1543 GHARBI, GHOLAMERZA 12/11/02 A DALLAS
02-1545 GHARBI, GHOLAMERZA 12/11/02 A DALLAS
99-0469 GILMORE, ERIC JEROME 06/23/99 S EASTLAND
02-0561 GONZALEZ, ALFONZO 09/18/02 A HARRIS 063 865
01-0236 GRAY, TERRY 01/30/02 A HARRIS
00-1647 GUAJARDO, JOSE FIDEL 02/14/01 S NUECES 024 423
02-0358 GUTIERREZ, ELOY JAMES 06/19/02 S NUECES 065 362
02-0362 HAMPTON, WALTER, JR. 10/02/02 A HARRIS 066 430
02-0826 HERNANDEZ, ALEXANDER 08/21/02 S DALLAS 074 73
01-2053 HERNANDEZ, ARTURO CHAVEZ 03/20/02 S KLEBERG 055 701
00-0818 HERNANDEZ, JOHN 09/20/00 S BEXAR 018 699
00-1329 HROMADKA, DARLENE 01/10/01 A HARRIS
02-0413 JACK, JONATHAN DERRICK 09/25/02 S HARRIS 064 694
02-0678 JONES, KENDRICK TREMAINE 10/30/02 S TARRANT
00-1084 JONES, PATRICK ALLEN 10/18/00 A FORT BEND
01-2099 KELLAR, RANDALL NORMAN 04/24/02 A DALLAS
99-1868 KERSH, PHILLIP WAYNE 02/23/00 A HARRIS 002 636
02-1080 LOPEZ, ARTURO ARTEAGA 11/06/02 S TARRANT 080 624
02-1488 LYDIA, PHILLIP EARL 11/06/02 A TARRANT 081 486
02-1287 MANNING, RAYMOND 12/11/02 S AUSTIN 084 15
00-0646 MARBELLA, JOSEPH, III 02/07/01 S NACOGDOCHES
02-0185 MARTINEZ, CHRISTINA 06/12/02 S SMITH
02-0761 MARTINEZ, LUIS NARVEZ 11/13/02 A TARRANT
02-1123 MARTINEZ, LUIS NARVEZ 11/13/02 A TARRANT
01-0587 McCLINTON, HAROLD, JR. 09/12/01 S HARRIS 038 747
02-0744 MCDANIEL, BILLY WAYNE 09/18/02 S NAVARRO 072 756
00-1408 McGEE, DANNY JOE, II 11/08/00 S HARRIS 023 156
99-1802 McLAREN, RICHARD LANCE 03/22/00 S BREWSTER 002 595
01-0817 MENDEZ, JOHN BUSTAMONTE 09/12/01 A TAYLOR 042 347
01-1263 MIDDLETON, DAVID WAYNE 10/24/01 A WISE
01-2243 MISCHKE, JOHN THOMAS 04/24/02 A BRAZOS
01-2444 MIZELL, CHARLES W., JR. 06/12/02 A BEXAR 070 156
01-2289 MONREAL JR., ALFREDO 03/13/02 A TARRANT
01-2093 MOSES, SHANNON EUGENE 01/09/02 S HARRIS
02-0665 MUNGIA, JEREMY 11/20/02 S NUECES 076 570
02-0933 NONN, JAIME CHARLES 10/23/02 A HIDALGO 069 590
01-2330 OSBOURN, VICKI C. 05/08/02 A AUSTIN 059 809
99-1801 OTTO, ROBERT "WHITE EAGLE" 03/22/00 S BREWSTER 002 595
01-2378 PEEK, ROBERT 09/11/02 A DALLAS
01-2377 PEEK, ROSANNA 09/11/02 A DALLAS
02-0201 PETERSON, JAMES MICHAEL 04/10/02 S COLLIN
02-0260 RAMIREZ, AUGUSTINE 10/02/02 S TARRANT 063 471
01-1464 RAMIREZ, LETICIA MARIACA 10/31/01 S SMITH
01-1410 REED, ANTHONY JAMES 12/19/01 A DALLAS
01-2355 REX, MARY ELAINE 05/08/02 S GILLESPIE
02-0462 RICKELS, TERRY N. 09/11/02 S BEE 069 775
99-2055 RIOS, DANIEL, JR. 04/12/00 S HARRIS 004 400
02-1294 ROBINSON, WILLIAM MATTHEW 11/20/02 A HARRIS 080 709
01-0290 RODRIGUEZ, JOHNNY 05/16/01 A COMAL 031 772
01-1412 ROGERS, BOBBY RAY 12/05/01 S DALLAS
02-0739/41 RYLANDER, ROBERT 09/11/02 S BEXAR 075 119
01-0050 SANCHEZ, ARTHUR GARCIA 05/09/01 S BEXAR 032 687
02-0612 SAUCEDA, KEVIN 08/21/02 A HARRIS
99-1104/5 SCHMIDT, ERIC BRIAN 09/29/99 A HARRIS
01-2031 SHANKLE, BRUCE WAYNE 02/13/02 S BELL 059 756
02-1313 SIMS, MICHAEL 11/27/02 A NAVARRO 082 730
01-1328 SIMS, SCOTT EVERETT 12/05/01 A HARRIS
02-1548 SMITH, ERIC LENARD 10/30/02 S HARRIS
02-0100 SOLIZ, DAVID S. 05/15/02 S FORT BEND 060 163
01-2181 STEVENSON-GRAY, JACQUELINE 04/24/02 A BRAZOS
01-1699 STURGEON, RICHARD GLEN 01/30/02 A HARRIS
02-1037 TAYLOR, JEFFREY EDWARD 11/13/02 S HARRIS 074 457
01-2360 TREVINO, TOMMY 03/27/02 S TARRANT 060 188
01-1932 TURNER, MARCUS 02/06/02 S TARRANT 049 461
02-0937 WALLACE, ROBERT MARVIN 12/11/02 A LAMAR 075 576
01-2115 WATTS, JOHN 03/06/02 A HARRIS 056 694
02-0683 WILLIAMS, CLAYTON DWAYNE 09/18/02 S GREGG 071 862
02-0414 WILLIAMS, MICHAEL ANDY 09/25/02 S HARRIS
02-1015 WILLIAMS, THEODORE SARON 10/02/02 A HOOD 074 902
01-2365 WOODS, OTIS DON 04/10/02 S HARRIS 059 833
00-1555 YEAGER, MICHAEL JOHN 02/20/02 S TARRANT 023 566
02-0904 YOUNG, CARROL DWAYNE 09/11/02 S HARRIS 073 482
02-0936 ZORN, MARY 09/11/02 A SMITH
01-1168 ZULIANI, GERALD CHRISTOPHER 10/10/01 A TRAVIS 052 825
02-0539 ZUNIGA, JOSE 09/11/02 S LYNN
NUMERICAL LISTING WITH ISSUES GRANTED
99-0469 GILMORE, ERIC JEROME 06/23/99
STATE'SEASTLANDAGGRAVATED ASSAULT
1. WHETHER EVIDENCE OF A LESSER OFFENSE NECESSARILY RAISED A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE SUCH AS TO REQUIRE A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY?
2. WHETHER EVIDENCE OF A LESSER OFFENSE ALONE IS SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A LESSER-INCLUDED INSTRUCTION, OR WHETHER THE LESSER OFFENSE MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE PROOF NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE CHARGED OFFENSE?
99-1104/5 SCHMIDT, ERIC BRIAN 09/29/99
APPELLANT'SHARRISHABEAS CORPUS
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FAILING TO GRANT HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, WHERE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT APPELLANT DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.
99-1801 OTTO, ROBERT "WHITE EAGLE" 03/22/00
99-1802 McLAREN, RICHARD LANCE 03/22/00
STATE'SBREWSTERENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
1. WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IS CHARGED WITH ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY HAVING CONSPIRED TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE AND HAVING PERFORMED AN OVERT ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, CAN THE INDIVIDUAL'S PERFORMANCE OF SAID OVERT ACT BE ESTABLISHED BY PROOF THAT HE WAS CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE AS A PARTY FOR ANOTHER'S COMMISSION OF SAID OVERT ACT?
99-1868 KERSH, PHILLIP WAYNE 02/23/00
APPELLANT'SHARRISFELONY POSSESSION
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS MISCONSTRUED CHAPTER 44 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHEN THE COURT ASSUMED JURISDICTION OF THE STATE'S APPEAL
99-2055 RIOS, DANIEL JR. 04/12/00
STATE'SHARRISAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE THE PROPER DEFERENCE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN CONDUCTING VOIR DIRE.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IMPOSING AN IMPROPER RESTRICTION ON VOIR DIRE IS CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SUMMARILY REVERSING THE CONVICTION WITHOUT CONDUCTING A MEANINGFUL HARM ANALYSIS UNDER RULE 44.2(B) OF THE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE.
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IMPROPER LIMITATION OF DEFENSE VOIR DIRE IS ANALYZED FOR HARM UNDER RULE 44.2(A) OF THE TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE IMPROPER LIMITATION OF DEFENSE VOIR DIRE IN THIS CASE WAS HARMFUL WERE THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE JURY WAS NOT FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.
00-0646 MARBELLA, JOSEPH, III 02/07/01
STATE'SNACOGDOCHESTHEFT
1. IS THE REFUSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE STATE TO AGREE TO THE DEFENDANT'S OFFER TO STIPULATE TO TWO PRIOR CONVICTIONS, NECESSARY AS JURISDICTIONAL ELEMENTS, ERROR WHERE NO ADDITIONAL PRIOR CONVICTIONS ARE ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT?
00-0818 HERNANDEZ, JOHN 09/20/00
STATE'SBEXARDWI
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT'S OFFER TO STIPULATE TO HIS PRIOR DWI CONVICTIONS WAS PROPER BECAUSE THE PROPOSED STIPULATION WAS CONDITIONED ON THE STATE'S BEING BARRED FROM MENTIONING OR REFERRING TO THE PRIOR DWI CONVICTIONS BEFORE THE JURY.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT'S OFFER TO STIPULATE TO HIS PRIOR DWI CONVICTIONS WAS PROPER BECAUSE THE PROPOSED STIPULATION WOULD PREVENT THE STATE FROM READING THE TWO JURISDICTIONALLY REQUIRED DWI CONVICTIONS TO THE JURY IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THIS COURT'S OPINION IN TAMEZ V. STATE.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT'S MOTION TO STIPULATE TO HIS PRIOR DWI CONVICTIONS WAS "PROPER" BECAUSE THE MOTION WAS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE EVIDENCE FROM THE JURY, AND IF GRANTED, THE MOTION WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE STATE FROM READING THE JURISDICTIONALLY REQUIRED TWO PREVIOUS DWI CONVICTIONS TO THE JURY.
00-1084 JONES, PATRICK ALLEN 10/18/00
APPELLANT'SFORT BENDSEXUAL ASSAULT
1. COUNSEL WAS ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW FROM THIS CASE AFTER SENTENCING, BUT THE TRIAL COURT DENIED HIS MOTION TO APPOINT APPELLATE COUNSEL(WITH AN ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFENDANT'S INDIGENCY). WAS THE DEFENDANT ALSO REQUIRED TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL IN ORDER TO APPRIZE THE TRIAL COURT OF HIS DESIRE TO APPEAL?
00-1329 HROMADKA, DARLENE 01/10/01
APPELLANT'S HARRIS D.W.I.
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING HER REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO ART., 38.23, V.A.C.C.P., ON THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS SHE PERFORMED WAS WAIVED WHEN SHE FAILED TO OBJECT TO THIS EVIDENCE WHEN IT WAS OFFERED AT TRIAL.
00-1408 McGEE, DANNY JOE, II 11/08/00
STATE'SHARRISPOSS. OF COCAINE
1.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING APPELLANT'S ESCAPE WAS NOT IMMINENT, AND THEREBY FINDING THAT APPELLANT'S WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ARTICLE 14.04.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE TIP LEADING THEM TO APPELLANT WAS NOT CORROBORATED, AND THEREBY FINDING THAT APPELLANT'S WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ARTICLE 14.01.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT FOUND IN A SUSPICIOUS PLACE, AND THEREBY FINDING THAT APPELLANT'S WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ARTICLE 14.03.
4. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE SEARCH OF APPELLANT WAS UNREASONABLE (STRIP SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST).
00-1555 YEAGER, MICHAEL JOHN 02/20/02
STATE'STARRANTDWI
1. MUST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS INTEND TO DETAIN AN INTOXICATED DRIVER WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION IN ORDER TO LATER DETAIN HIM OUTSIDE THEIR JURISDICTION UNDER THE “HOT PURSUIT” DOCTRINE?
00-1647 GUAJARDO, JOSE FIDEL 02/14/01
STATE'SNUECESPOSSESSION OF COCAINE
4. DOES THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BAR A D.A. FROM LITIGATING A SUPPRESSION ISSUE IN DISTRICT COURT WHEN THE D.A. WAS NOT THE PARTY WHO LITIGATED THE ISSUE IN COUNTY COURT?
5. IS A PRETRIAL RULING ON REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP, OR PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, A RULING REGARDING AN ULTIMATE FACT, OR MERELY, AS OTHER COURTS HAVE HELD, A RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE WHICH CANNOT SERVE AS THE BASIS OF A COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BAR TO RE-LITIGATION OF THE ISSUE IN ANOTHER COURT ON ANOTHER CASE?
6. DOES JEOPARDY ATTACH IN A PRETRIAL HEARING ON A MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND IS A PRETRIAL RULING ON REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP OR PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, ON A CASE THAT IS SUBSEQUENTLY DISMISSED, A FINAL JUDGMENT, OR MERELY, AS OTHER COURTS HAVE HELD, A RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE WHICH CANNOT SERVE AS THE BASIS OF A COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BAR TO RE-LITIGATION OF THAT ISSUE IN ANOTHER COURT ON ANOTHER CASE?
7. IS THERE A DUE PROCESS BASIS, INDEPENDENT OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE, FOR APPLICATION OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, AND IF SO, DOES IT APPLY WHERE THE FIRST PROCEEDING DID NOT END IN A FINAL JUDGMENT?
9. WHERE NO DOCUMENT FROM THE COUNTY COURT CASE AN NO REPORTER'S RECORD FROM THE COUNTY COURT'S SUPPRESSION HEARING WERE INTRODUCED AT THE HEARING IN THIS CASE AND ARE THEREFORE NOT PART OF THE APPELLATE RECORD, HAS APPELLANT CARRIED HIS BURDEN OF PRESENTING A RECORD THAT AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWS HIS ENTITLEMENT TO RELIEF ON HIS SPECIAL PLEA, OR HAS HIS FAILURE TO DEVELOP A PROPER RECORD BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT RESULTING IN AN INADEQUATE RECORD IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TO PASS ON THE ISSUES HE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW?
10. IS THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION -- WHICH IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH PUBLISHED OPINIONS FROM TWO OTHER COURTS OF APPEALS IN CASES WITH ISSUES AND FACT NEARLY IDENTICAL TO THOSE IN THIS CASE BUT WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE DECISION IN THIS CASE -- CORRECT?
00-2115 AGUIRRE-MATA, MARCELINO 05/30/01
APPELLANT'SHARRISPOSSESSION W/INTENT TO DELIVER HEROIN
1. THIS PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED TO REVIEW THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S TOTAL FAILURE TO ADMONISH THE APPELLANT AS TO THE RANGE OF PUNISHMENT WAS NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR AND HARMLESS ERROR BECAUSE IT DID NOT AFFECT THE APPELLANT'S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.
01-0050 SANCHEZ, ARTHUR GARCIA 05/09/01
STATE'SBEXAROFFICIAL OPPRESSION
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW HIS CONTENTION THAT THE AMENDED INDICTMENT FAILED TO ALLEGE CONDUCT THAT WAS CRIMINAL BECAUSE IT FAILED TO ALLEGE THE CULPABLE MENTAL STATE.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT CONDUCT A PROPER HARM ANALYSIS OF THE ALLEGED NOTICE OF DEFECT IN THE INDICTMENT.
01-0056 BAYLESS, DEANNEE ANN 05/16/01
APPELLANT'S HUNTMURDER
1. DOES TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2 PERMIT A DEFENDANT WHO HAS ENTERED A PLEA PURSUANT TO A PLEA BARGAIN WITH THE STATE TO FILE AN OUT OF TIME AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL WHERE THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS ONLY A GENERAL NOTICE?
01-0236 GRAY, TERRY 01/30/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. THIS PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED DUE TO A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE JUSTICES, BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OPINION THAT TRIAL COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE IN HAVING HIS CLIENT PLEAD GUILTY TO AGGRAVATED ROBBERY WITH A DEADLY WEAPON WHERE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CONFER WITH HIS CLIENT AND DID NOT DISCOVER HIS CLIENT’S VERSION THAT THE OBJECT WAS A “TOY CAP PISTOL” UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE SENTENCING HEARING, AND THE 13 PAGE EXHAUSTIVE, COMPELLING DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE BAIRD CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE.
2. THIS PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OPINION OF THE 14TH COURT OF APPEALS HEREIN ON WITHDRAWAL OF A GUILTY PLEA CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT’S HOLDING IN A FACTUALLY IDENTICAL CASE OF PAYNE V. STATE, 790 S.W.2d 649 (TEX. CRIM.APP. 1990).
01-0290 RODRIGUEZ, JOHNNY 05/16/01
APPELLANT'S COMALDELIVERY OF COCAINE TO A MINOR (ENHANCED)
1. WHERE THE INDICTMENT ON ITS FACE ALLEGES ONLY ONE (1) OCCURRENCE OF DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, DOES SLEDGE V. STATE, 953//253 (1997), ALLOW THE INTRODUCTION OF 20 TO 30 PRIOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE DELIVERIES TO THE SAME PERSON UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DELIVERIES ARE ACTUALLY PART OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE, AND THEREBY EVADE THE PROVISIONS OF RULES 404 (b) AND 403, TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE?
2. CAN A DEFENDANT BE DENIED THE PROTECTIONS OF THE ACCOMPLICE WITNESS RULE UNDER ARTICLE 38.14 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MERELY BECAUSE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IS AVAILABLE TO THE ACCOMPLICE?
01-0519 BEAL, DANIEL LOUIS 09/12/01
APPELLANT'SHARRISPOSSESSION W/INTENT TO DELIVER AMPHETAMINE
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THE DATE TO BE USED IN DETERMINING THE FINALITY OF A CONVICTION, FOR ENHANCEMENT PURPOSES, IS THE DATE THE JUDGMENT IS SIGNED AND NOT THE DATE OF THE APPELLATE COURT'S MANDATE.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF TRUE TO THE ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPH.
01-0542 CHAVEZ, RICHARD, JR. 09/12/01
STATE'SPOTTERAGGRAVATED ASSAULT
2. IF INDEED THE TRIAL COURT'S PROCEDURE WAS IMPROPER WAS THE ERROR IN PROCEEDING WITH ELEVEN JURORS "STRUCTURAL" ERROR DEFYING HARM ANALYSIS, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD?
01-0587 McCLINTON, JR., HAROLD 09/12/01
STATE'SHARRISPOSSESSION OF COCAINE
1. DOES A TRIAL COURT HAVE THE POWER TO REFORM A DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE AFTER THE DEFENDANT HAS ALREADY BEGUN TO SERVE THE SENTENCE?
01-0817 MENDEZ, JOHN BUSTAMONTE 09/12/01
APPELLANT'STAYLORMURDER
1. WHETHER THE ADOPTION OF RULE 33.1, TEX. R. APP. PROC., REQUIRING CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION TO PRESERVE ALL NON-STRUCTURAL APPELLATE ERROR HAS OVERRULED THIRTY YEARS OF COURT OPINIONS REQUIRING THE TRIAL COURT TO SUA SPONTE WITHDRAW A GUILTY PLEA BEFORE A JURY WHEN EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE IS ADDUCED BEFORE THAT JURY AND NOT WITHDRAWN.
01-1168 ZULIANI, GERALD CHRISTOPHER 10/10/01
APPELLANT'STRAVISASSAULT W/BODILY WEAPON
1. IN RESOLVING PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL IS FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE DID NOT ACT IN SELF-DEFENSE, THE COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED INCORRECT STANDARDS OF REVIEW.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL, UNDER THE EXCITED UTTERANCE' EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, JUDY TOBEY'S TESTIMONY ABOUT PATTI DWINELL'S STATEMENTS TO HER ON FEBRUARY 3, 1999.
01-1263 MIDDLETON, DAVID WAYNE 10/24/01
APPELLANT'SWISEPOSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
1. SHOULD A TRIAL COURT PROVIDE THE JURY WITH A DEFINITION OF THE TERM "PROBABLE CAUSE" IN AN ART. 38.23 INSTRUCTION?
01-1328 SIMS, SCOTT EVERETT 12/05/01
APPELLANT'SHARRISD.W.I.
1. WHETHER COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY PERFORMED THE FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW OF THIS EVIDENCE?
01-1410 REED, ANTHONY JAMES 12/19/01
APPELLANT'SDALLASAGGRAVATED ASSAULT
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY BROADENED THE INDICTMENT WHEN IT INCLUDED RECKLESSLY IN THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND THE INDICTMENT ONLY ALLEGED KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY.
01-1412 ROGERS, BOBBY RAY 12/05/01
STATE'SDALLASMURDER
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN HOLDING THAT A REQUEST FOR AN ACCIDENT INSTRUCTION IS EQUIVALENT TO A REQUEST FOR A VOLUNTARY CONDUCT INSTRUCTION?
2. WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS INCORRECT IN APPLYING THE ALMANZA "SOME HARM" STANDARD OF REVIEW WHERE THE JURY INSTRUCTION REQUESTED AT TRIAL VARIED FROM THE JURY INSTRUCTION THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD WAS ERRONEOUSLY OMITTED FROM THE JURY CHARGE?
01-1464 RAMIREZ, LETICIA MARIACA 10/31/01
STATE'SSMITHTHEFT
1. AFTER THE 1985 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ART. V, § 12, DOES THE AMENDMENT OR CHANGE OF A COMPLAINT THAT UNDERLIES AN INFORMATION OPERATE TO VITIATE THE COMPLAINT AND DIVEST THE TRIAL COURT OF JURISDICTION?
2. DOES A DEFECT IN A COMPLAINT THAT UNDERLIES AN INFORMATION CONSTITUTE A DEFECT IN THE INFORMATION THAT IS WAIVED IF NOT RAISED PRIOR TO TRIAL?
01-1670 ARROYO, TONY 06/19/02
APPELLANT'SBEXARASSAULT
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS CREATE AN IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH AN OUT-OF-COURT WITNESS WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO OFFER ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY THE COMPLAINANT AS THE PERSON CONVICTED IN THE JUDGMENTS HE SOUGHT TO HAVE INTRODUCED?
01-1699 STURGEON, RICHARD GLEN 01/30/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. WHAT MUST DEFENSE COUNSEL DO TO PRESERVE ERROR WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DENIES HIS REQUEST FOR A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT FOR A SUBPOENAED WITNESS UNDER ART. 42.12, V.A.C.C.P.; MAY HE “SHOW WHAT THE WITNESS WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED TO” BY ASSERTING THE ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY IN OPEN COURT AS ONE COURT OF APPEALS SAYS HE MAY, OR MUST HE OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THAT ASSERTION, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD IN APPELLANT’S CASE?
01-1733 DRAGOO, RANDY LEE 03/06/02
STATE'STARRANTPOSSESSION OF FIREARM BY FELON
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION EXHIBITS A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF SPEEDY TRIAL JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT HOLDS THAT AN ALLEGED `ASSURANCE' BY THE STATE WILL EXCUSE APPELLANT'S 3 ½ YEAR DELAY IN ASSERTING HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHT.
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION FUNDAMENTALLY MISINTERPRET FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT HELD THAT A RECORD SILENT ON THE REASONS FRO THE DELAY WEIGHS `HEAVILY' AGAINST THE STATE?
3. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY CONCLUDING THAT THE MERE PASSAGE OF TIME (3 ½ YEARS) SATISFIES APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SHOW HE WAS PREJUDICED?
4. ASSUMING THAT THE MERE PASSAGE OF 3 ½ YEARS CREATES A PRESUMPTION OF PREJUDICE, DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN I FAILED TO FIND THAT SUCH A PRESUMPTION WAS REBUTTED BY (a) THE ABSENCE OF ANY LEGITIMATE DEFENSE TO APPELLANT'S CRIME, AND (b) APPELLANT'S PRE-EXISTING IMPRISONMENT FOR MURDER?
5. DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS ASSERTION THAT APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING IMPEACHED BY A FORMER CONVICTION TRANSFORM ILLUSORY PREJUDICE INTO REAL PREJUDICE?
6. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN IT RELIED UPON A TRIAL COURT CONCLUSION WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ANY EVIDENCE AND WAS MADE LONG AFTER THE TRIAL COURT HAD REJECTED APPELLANT'S SPEEDY TRIAL CLAIM?
7. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS MISCONSTRUE THE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE WHEN IT DECIDED THAT IT LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO ABATE, AND IN REFUSING TO ABATE THIS CASE?
01-1748/9 BROWDER, BRUCE 09/11/02
STATE'STARRANTSEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD
1. THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT APPLIED A DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW AND REJECTED THE TRIAL COURT’S FACT FINDINGS EVEN THOUGH THE FINDINGS WERE PREMISED ON MATTERS DESERVING DEFERENCE WHICH WERE SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.
2. THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE STATE’S REVOCATION PETITION FOR A LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE STATE IN EXECUTING THE ARREST WARRANTS.
01-1794 DYAR, BRADLEY ROBERT 12/05/01
APPELLANT'SBASTROPD.W.I
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLANT'S WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE 14.03 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; IS A HOSPITAL REALLY A SUSPICIOUS PLACE?
01-1932 TURNER, MARCUS 02/06/02
STATE'STARRANTCAPITAL MURDER
2. DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION USURP THE ROLE OF THE TRIAL COURT BY INSISTING THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS REQUIRED TO BELIEVE APPELLANT (AND POSSIBLY HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL) ON THE HISTORICAL FACT ISSUE OF WHETHER THE ACCEPTANCE DEADLINE HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED TO APPELLANT?
3. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION RELIEVE APPELLANT OF HIS OBLIGATION TO SHOW PREJUDICE– (A) BY TRAMPLING THE TRIAL COURT’S PREROGATIVE TO MAKE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS BASED ON WITNESS DEMEANOR, AND (B) BY IGNORING APPELLANT’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT HE WOULD HAVE TIMELY ACCEPTED THE 35- YEAR PLEA OFFER HAD THE JULY ACCEPTANCE DEADLINE BEEN COMMUNICATED TO HIM?
01-2012/6 CASTENEDA, OCTOVIO 02/06/02
APPELLANT'SHIDALGOFORFEITED BOND
1. WHETHER A BAIL BOND SURETY IS LIABLE ON A BAIL BOND FORFEITURE WHEN ITS PRINCIPAL IS DEPORTED PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THE PRINCIPAL WAS REQUIRED TO APPEAR IN A TEXAS COURT.
2. WHETHER A BAIL BOND SURETY IS LIABLE AFTER EXECUTING A BAIL BOND IN WHICH THE SHERIFF NEVER RELEASES THE PRINCIPAL ON THE BAIL BOND BUT RATHER TRANSFERS THE PRINCIPAL TO THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.
3. WHETHER A BAIL BOND FORFEITURE FINAL JUDGMENT IN WHICH THERE IS NO REMITTITUR CAN BEAR ANY INTEREST.
01-2031 SHANKLE, BRUCE WAYNE 02/13/02
STATE'SBELLAGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. DOES AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE AND DEFENDANT, FOR THE STATE TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER PENDING CHARGE IN ASSESSING PUNISHMENT UNDER SECTION 12.45 V.A.P.C., BRING THE PLEA AGREEMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF AN AGREED PUNISHMENT RECOMMENDATION IN RULE 25.2(b)(3) TEX.R.APP.PRO.?
2. WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECT IN CONCLUDING THAT A FAILURE TO ADMONISH APPELLANT ABOUT SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS AFFECTED A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RECORD EVIDENCE ABOUT WHAT THE APPELLANT KNEW OR DID NOT KNOW ABOUT SUCH REQUIREMENTS?
01-2053 HERNANDEZ, ARTURO CHAVEZ 03/20/02
STATE'SKLEBERGPOSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
1. MUST A PARTY SEEKING TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE ALWAYS PRESENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE TEST OF KELLY V. STATE, 824 S.W.2d 568 (1992), REGARDLESS OF THE PARTICULAR SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE?
2. IF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OR A COURT OF APPEALS HAS DETERMINED THE VALIDITY OF A PARTICULAR SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE AND A TECHNIQUE APPLYING THAT PRINCIPLE, MUST A PARTY SUBSEQUENTLY SEEKING TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE BASED UPON THAT SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE NEVERTHELESS SATISFY THE FIRST TWO PRONGS OF THE TEST OF KELLY V. STATE, 824 S.W.2d 568 (1992)?
3. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF THE RESULTS OF A URINALYSIS TEST OF THE APPELLANT’S URINE SAMPLE?
01-2066/7 ALDRICH, DANA MICHELLE 02/13/02
APPELLANT'SDALLASIMPERSONATING A PUBLIC SERVANT
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT SUSTAINING EITHER: (A) THAT BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY WITHOUT CONDUCTING A “MOON REVIEW,” THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, OR (B) THAT IF APPELLANT’S TRIAL ATTORNEY WAIVED SUCH BY NOT REQUESTING SAME, THEN APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION BELOW THE STRICKLAND AND HERNANDEZ LEVEL.
01-2093 MOSES, SHANNON EUGENE 01/09/02
STATE'SHARRISBRIBERY
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AN EXTRANEOUS OFFENSE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO REBUT A DEFENSIVE THEORY THAT POLICE OFFICERS FABRICATED THE EXISTENCE OF THE OFFENSE IN ORDER TO RETALIATE AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR HIS ROLE IN A CONTROVERSY INVOLVING OTHER POLICE OFFICERS.
01-2099 KELLAR, RANDALL NORMAN 04/24/02
APPELLANT'SDALLASTHEFT
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO QUASH, WHICH SOUGHT NOTICE OF THE SPECIFIC ACTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL THEFTS IN A CASE IN WHICH THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED THEFT IN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT.
01-2115 WATTS, JOHN 03/06/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISWATER POLLUTION
2. THE TRIAL COURT AND APPELLATE COURT MISREAD AMERICAN PLANT FOOD CORP. V. STATE, 587 S.W. 2D 679 (TEX.CRIM.APP. 1979) TO HOLD THAT ‘A DITCH' IS WATER IN THE STATE WHEN, IN FACT, THE SPECIFIC HOLDING OF AMERICAN PLANT FOOD CORP VS. STATE, SUPRA. WAS, ‘THIS DRAINAGE DITCH WATER' WAS SURFACE WATER.' THIS BEING SO, THE ORAL INSTRUCTION MISSTATED THE LAW TO THE JURY.
3. EVEN ASSUMING FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE THAT A DRAINAGE DITCH IS WATER IN THE STATE, THE APPELLATE COURT IGNORES PRIOR CASE LAW WHEN IT SUMMARILY CONCLUDES THAT SINCE THE ORAL INSTRUCTION WAS A CORRECT STATEMENT OF LAW, IT, THEREFORE, WAS NOT A COMMENT ON THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
01-2156 FREEMAN, CONSUELO 03/27/02
STATE'SNUECESRETALIATION
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN IT EFFECTIVELY HELD THAT THE FAILURE TO SEEK RECUSAL OF THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS PER SE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
01-2181 STEVENSON-GRAY, JACQUELINE 04/24/02
APPELLANT'SBRAZOSTHEFT
1. PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE SECTION 25.2(b)(3), DOES A RESTITUTION AWARD THAT WAS NOT PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENT AND THAT WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE DEFENDANT AT TRIAL SO THAT SHE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT, CONSTITUTE PUNISHMENT THAT EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PROSECUTOR AND AGREED TO BY THE DEFENDANT SO AS TO ALLOW HER TO APPEAL FROM HER PLEA OF GUILTY?
2. UNDER TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 21.2, IS A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL REQUIRED AS A PREREQUISITE TO PRESENTING ERROR ON APPEAL WHEN THE FACTS BEING APPEALED FROM ARE CONTAINED IN THE COMBINED REPORTER’S RECORD AND CLERK’S RECORD?
01-2189 BAILEY, HAROLD WAYNE 03/27/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISFTSRA
1. WHEN MUST A DEFENDANT FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM A CONDITION OF PROBATION IMPOSED AFTER THE TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL HAS EXPIRED?
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY DISMISSING APPELLANT’S APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE JUDGMENT WHEN THE RESTITUTION ORDER APPELLANT SOUGHT TO APPEAL WAS NOT SIGNED UNTIL THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE JUDGMENT?
01-2243 MISCHKE, JOHN THOMAS 04/24/02
APPELLANT'SBRAZOSINDECENCY WITH A CHILD
1. WHETHER APPELLANT’S OPEN PLEA OF GUILTY WAS NOT FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY GIVEN UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AND ARTICLE I, §§ 10 AND 19 OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, AS THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION IS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF THE PLEA.
01-2289 MONREAL JR., ALFREDO 03/13/02
APPELLANT'STARRANTAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN HOLDING THAT MONREAL HAD WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT APPEAL HIS CONVICTION WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE TRIAL COURT.
01-2330 OSBOURN, VICKI C. 05/08/02
APPELLANT'S AUSTIN POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD ARTICLE 39.14(b) OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DID NOT REQUIRE EXCLUSION OF THE STATE’S EXPERT TESTIMONY.
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT A POLICE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION OF MARIHUANA WAS ADMISSIBLE AS A LAY OPINION UNDER TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 701.
01-2355 REX, MARY ELAINE 05/08/02
STATE'S GILLESPIE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
1. DOES ART. 38.23 PROHIBIT THE USE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF LAW, WHERE THAT INFORMATION IS NOT ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED AT TRIAL?
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN HOLDING THAT ART. 3823 REQUIRES SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN THE COURSE OF A PRIVATE PARTY’S VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL TRESPASS STATUTE?
3. WAS THE SEARCH OF THE RESIDENCE AND SEIZURE OF MARIJUANA LAWFUL PURSUANT TO THE GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION OF ART. 38.23(b)?
01-2360 TREVINO, TOMMY 03/27/02
STATE'STARRANTMURDER
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN DECIDING THAT APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SUDDEN PASSION INSTRUCTION WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE STATE’S ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT’S REACTION WAS NOT ONE THAT SOCIETY WOULD BE WILLING TO RECOGNIZE AS NORMAL OR JUSTIFIED, IN VIOLATION OF THE RELEVANT LANGUAGE FROM THE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE REQUIRING APPELLATE COURTS TO ADDRESS EVERY ISSUE RAISED AND NECESSARY TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE APPEAL?
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY APPLYING ONLY SELECTIVE PORTIONS OF THE APPLICABLE HARM ANALYSIS UPON WHICH THE STATE HAD RELIED AND, THEREBY, VIOLATE NOT ONLY THE DICTATES OF THE BINDING PRECEDENT FROM THIS COURT, BUT ALSO THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE REQUIRING THAT ISSUED OPINIONS ADDRESS EVERY ISSUE RAISED AND NECESSARY TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE APPEAL?
3. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN FINDING ERROR IN THE TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL OF APPELLANT’S REQUESTED INSTRUCTION ON SUDDEN PASSION ON APPELLANT’S PART, SUCH THAT THE JURY COULD HAVE REACHED SUCH A CONCLUSION ONLY THROUGH SHEER IRRATIONALITY OR PURE SPECULATION, EITHER OF WHICH WOULD VIOLATE THIS COURT’S BINDING PRECEDENTS?
01-2365 WOODS, OTIS DON 04/10/02
STATE'SHARRISATTEMPTED SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDE IT HAD JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF APPELLANT’S APPEAL WHEN APPELLANT WAIVED HIS APPEAL AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN WITH THE STATE?
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDE IT HAD JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF APPELLANT’S APPEAL WHEN APPELLANT’S NOTICES OF APPEAL FROM HIS PLEA-BARGAINED CONVICTION WERE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(b)(3)?
3. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDE IT HAD JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE VOLUNTARINESS OF APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY ENTERED IN CONNECTION WITH A PLEA BARGAIN?
4. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY FIND APPELLANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL TO APPELLANT FOR FAILING TO REQUEST APPOINTMENT OF A MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT TO ASSIST THE DEFENSE PURSUANT TO AKE V. OKLAHOMA, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMPETENT EVIDENCE IN THE APPELLATE RECORD SHOWING EITHER DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE ON THE PART OF COUNSEL IN THIS REGARD OR PREJUDICE TO APPELLANT?
01-2377 PEEK, ROSANNA 09/11/02
APPELLANT'SDALLASRECKLESS INJURY TO A CHILD
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO REOPEN AND OFFER CERTAIN MEDICAL RECORDS.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT AN UNREASONABLE DELAY WOULD OCCUR IF THE DEFENSE WAS ALLOWED TO REOPEN.
01-2378 PEEK, ROBERT 09/11/02
APPELLANT'SDALLASRECKLESS INJURY TO A CHILD
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO REOPEN AND OFFER CERTAIN MEDICAL RECORDS.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT AN UNREASONABLE DELAY WOULD OCCUR IF THE DEFENSE WAS ALLOWED TO REOPEN.
01-2444 MIZELL, CHARLES W., JR. 06/12/02
APPELLANT'SBEXARVIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS; OFF. OPPR.
1. WHETHER THE STATE’S APPEAL CONTENDING APPELLANT’S SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL IS AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO ART 44.01 (b), OR WHETHER, BECAUSE THE STATE MAKES ITS APPEAL IN A CASE WHERE APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED AND OPTED TO APPEAL HIS CONVICTION, CONSTITUTES AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO ART. 44.01 (c).
2. WHETHER TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 44.01 REQUIRES THE STATE TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITHIN THE 15 DAY REQUISITE PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THE STATE WISHES TO APPEAL THE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS ILLEGAL?
01-2475 BROWN, HENRY 04/10/02
APPELLANT'SSMITHAGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THE EVIDENCE TO BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE JURY’S FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT VOLUNTARILY RELEASE THE VICTIM.
01-2476/7 COLBERT, DERORY DEWAYNE 04/10/02
STATE'SDALLASMURDER; AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT, FOR JURY TRIALS HELD PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THIS COURT’S OPINION IN PAULSON, IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO HAVE INCLUDED A GEESA INSTRUCTION IN THE JURY CHARGE.
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RETROACTIVELY APPLYING PAULSON WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN ANALYSIS UNDER STOVALL V. DENNO.
3. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING A CRIMINAL CONVICTION WITHOUT CONDUCTING A HARM ANALYSIS.
02-0070 ARMENDARIZ, JOSE FRANCO 06/19/02
STATE'SECTORPOSSESSION OF COCAINE
1. DO POLICE OFFICERS EMPLOYED BY A "HOME-RULE" MUNICIPALITY HAVE COUNTY-WIDE JURISDICTION?
2. CAN CITY POLICE OFFICERS WITHOUT JURISDICTION LEGALLY STOP A SUSPECT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RELAYED TO THEM BY A DEPUTY SHERIFF WITH JURISDICTION?
02-0100 SOLIZ, DAVID S. 05/15/02
STATE'SFORT BENDPERJURY
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS IMPROPERLY READ INTO THE PERJURY VENUE STATUTE A REQUIREMENT THAT THE STATE MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAS SWORN FALSELY IN A HARRIS COUNTY DEPOSITION HAS ALSO RE-OFFERED THIS FALSE STATEMENT AS THE TRUTH IN FORT BEND COUNTY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH VENUE IN FORT BEND COUNTY?
2. DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS' INTERPRETATION OF THE PERJURY VENUE STATUTE REQUIRING AN "ACT" OF PERJURY IN FORT BEND COUNTY IGNORE EXPRESS LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 13.03 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND RENDER THE STATUTORY PHRASE "ATTEMPTED TO USE" A NULLITY THEREBY FRUSTRATING THE CLEAR LEGISLATIVE INTENT EMBODIED IN THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS DEALING WITH PERJURY?
3. IS VENUE PROPER FOR MISDEMEANOR PERJURY IN A COUNTY WHERE A FALSE STATEMENT IS USED FOR PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT?
4. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN DENYING VENUE FOR MISDEMEANOR PERJURY IN FORT BEND COUNTY EVEN THOUGH THE COURT EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A FALSE STATEMENT WAS USED IN FORT BEND COUNTY?
02-0185 MARTINEZ, CHRISTINA 06/12/02
STATE'SSMITHCAPITAL MURDER
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY RULING THAT AN OBJECTION TO ONE PHOTOGRAPH PRESERVED APPELLATE REVIEW FOR ALL TESTIMONY AND ALL OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS RELATED TO GANG ACTIVITY, BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT ON NOTICE OF THE EXTENT OF THE OBJECTION CONTEMPLATED ON APPEAL.
02-0201 PETERSON, JAMES MICHAEL 04/10/02
STATE'SCOLLINPOSSESSION & DELIVERY OF COCAINE
3. GIVEN THE IDENTIFICATION OF SUBSTANTIAL DEFECTS IN THE COURT’S DECISION, SHOULD THE COURT RE-EXAMINE AND ABANDON BAUDER V. STATE, 921 S.W.2d 696 (TEX. CRIM. APP.1996), AND ITS PROGENY?
4. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY ANALYZE THIS CASE UNDER BAUDER AND ITS PROGENY WHERE IT OVERLOOKED THE STATE’S CONTENTIONS BASED ON THE RECORD?
02-0254 DOE, JOHN 06/05/02
STATE'SDALLASNON-DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL AD
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN APPLYING THE MOST HARSH FORM OF STRICT SCRUTINY REVIEW TO A STATUTE PROHIBITING TWO OR MORE PEOPLE FROM AGREEING TO PUBLISH ANONYMOUS POLITICAL ADVERTISING?
2. IF STRICT SCRUTINY IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF REVIEW TO DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF TEX. ELEC. CODE § 255.001, DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT THE STATUTE WAS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER SUCH A REVIEW?
02-0260 RAMIREZ, AUGUSTINE 10/02/02
STATE'STARRANTAGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. MAY A COURT OF APPEALS REVERSE A CONVICTION AND REMAND FOR FURTHER FACTFINDING WHEN THAT REMAND IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF A HEARING ON AN OUT-OF-TIME MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL?
2. MAY A COURT OF APPEALS RELY ON AN UNTRANSLATED FOREIGN DOCUMENT, WHICH IT ADMITS IS NOT EVIDENCE, AS THE BASIS TO REVERSE A DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION?
02-0358 GUTIERREZ, ELOY JAMES 06/19/02
STATE'SNUECESATTEMPTED SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR TO HOLD THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA OF TRUE IN A REVOCATION PROCEEDING AFTER THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROSECUTOR'S AGREED RECOMMENDATION ON PUNISHMENT?
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY DID NOT SEEK TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF TRUE AFTER THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROSECUTOR'S AGREED RECOMMENDATION ON PUNISHMENT?
02-0362 HAMPTON, WALTER, JR. 10/02/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISSEXUAL ASSAULT
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR TO DECIDE THE STATE WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE JURY CHARGE CONTAIN THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT?
02-0400 FAISST, LINDSAY M. 07/31/02
APPELLANT'SSMITHINTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER
1. MAY AN ORDER CERTIFYING A JUVENILE TO STAND TRIAL AS AN ADULT BE APPEALED FOLLOWING AN OPEN PLEA OF GUILTY. SEE YOUNG V. STATE, 8 S.W.3D 656 (2000).
02-0413 JACK, JONATHAN DERRICK 09/25/02
STATE'SHARRISDELIVERY OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
1. THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING THE TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE APPELLANT A SECOND CHANCE TO FILE A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, WHEN THE TRIAL COURT HAD ALREADY LOST JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER AN OUT-OF-TIME MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
2. WHETHER THE STATE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER.
02-0414 WILLIAMS, MICHAEL ANDY 09/25/02
STATE'SHARRISASSAULT
1. THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING THE TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE APPELLANT A SECOND CHANCE TO FILE A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, WHEN THE TRIAL COURT HAD ALREADY LOST JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER AN OUT-OF-TIME MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
2. WHETHER THE STATE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER.
02-0421 CATES, JOHNNY WELDON II 09/11/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISFAILURE TO STOP AND RENDER AID
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE DEADLY WEAPON FINDING.
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION MATERIALLY MISSTATES THE FACTS AND REASONABLE, RATIONAL INFERENCES AND IN SO DOING, ERRONEOUSLY FINDS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE DEADLY WEAPON FINDING.
02-0435 ALONZO, ALEXANDER 07/31/02
STATE'SHARRISCAPITAL MURDER
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS REQUIRED TO DISREGARD THE TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE AND ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE PURPORTED CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE TRIAL COURT AND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE THE TRIAL COURT TO ADMIT THE EVIDENCE.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROFFERED TESTIMONY OF MS. GRAHAM WAS NOT HEARSAY, AND THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS REQUIRED TO FIND THAT MS. GRAHAM’S TESTIMONY WAS RELIABLE.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS REQUIRED TO ADMIT THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MILLER AND MR. O’SHIELDS, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT AVAILABLE AS WITNESSES, THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, AND THEIR TESTIMONY WAS NOT RELIABLE.
02-0462 RICKELS, TERRY N. 09/11/02
STATE'SBEEINDECENCY WITH A CHILD BY TOUCHING & EXPOSURE
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A CONDITION OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROHIBITED APPELLANT FROM GOING “WITHIN THREE HUNDRED (300) FEET OF ANY PREMISES WHERE CHILDREN 17 YEARS OR YOUNGER CONGREGATE OR GATHER” WAS TOO VAGUE TO BE ENFORCED, BECAUSE THE CONDITION DID NOT SPECIFY HOW THE CHILD SAFETY ZONE WAS TO BE MEASURED.
02-0539 ZUNIGA, JOSE 09/11/02
STATE'SLYNNMANSLAUGHTER
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS REVIEW OF THE FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE INSTANT CASE CONFLICTS WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS RELIANCE UPON INCONSISTENCY IN THE JURY’S VERDICT TO SUPPORT ITS HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENCY CONFLICTS WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
02-0561 GONZALEZ, ALFONZO 09/18/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISENGAGING IN ORG. CRIM. ACTIVITY
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REMOVING APPELLANT’S COUNSEL OF CHOICE AFTER THE STATE FILED A MOTION SEEKING HIS DISQUALIFICATION SOLELY ON THE GROUNDS OF DISCIPLINARY RULE 3.08?
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REMOVING APPELLANT’S COUNSEL OF CHOICE WHEN THE STATE DID NOT SHOW ACTUAL PREJUDICE TO THE STATE AS THE BASIS FOR DISQUALIFYING APPELLANT’S COUNSEL OF CHOICE?
3. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REMOVING APPELLANT’S COUNSEL OF CHOICE WHEN THE STATE DID NOT SHOW THAT APPELLANT’S COUNSEL OF CHOICE WAS A WITNESS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH AN ESSENTIAL FACT ON APPELLANT’S BEHALF.
02-0612 SAUCEDA, KEVIN 08/21/02
APPELLANT'S HARRIS AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY RULING THAT SIMPLY ASKING A QUESTION FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES RENDERED AN ENTIRE VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW OF EXTRANEOUS OFFENSES ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE RULE OF OPTIONAL COMPLETENESS.
02-0665 MUNGIA, JEREMY 11/20/02
STATE'SNUECESMURDER & ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A TRIAL COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS AN INDICTMENT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE STATE TO PROTECT A DEFENDANT FROM RETALIATION.
ON THE COURT’S ORDER (RULE 67)
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT “THE TRIAL COURT HAD [NO] VIABLE OPTIONS OTHER THAN TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT” IN ORDER TO PREVENT FURTHER INCARCERATION OF THE APPELLANT?
02-0678 JONES, KENDRICK TREMAINE 10/30/02
STATE'STARRANTAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. WHAT IS THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF REVIEW IN ASSESSING CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AFTER A HEARING ON A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL?
02-0683 WILLIAMS, CLAYTON DWAYNE 09/18/02
STATE'SGREGGCRIMINAL NONSUPPORT
1. IN A PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL NONSUPPORT, WHERE THE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT BEGAN PRIOR TO, BUT CONTINUED AFTER, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF A STATUTORY AMENDMENT INCREASING THE PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENSE, DOES A SAVINGS CLAUSE IN THE AMENDING ACT REQUIRE THAT THE DEFENDANT BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE STATUTE AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT?
ON THE COURT’S ORDER( RULE 67):
2. WHETHER THE OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL NONSUPPORT IS A CONTINUING OFFENSE?
02-0723 BLUITT, MAURICE 10/02/02
STATE'STARRANTINDECENCY WITH A CHILD
1. THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT THE JURY CHARGE AT THE PUNISHMENT PHASE WAS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
2. THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS MISAPPLIED THE STANDARD FOR EGREGIOUS HARM UNDER ALMANZA V. STATE, 686 S.W.2d 157 (TEX. CRIM. APP. 1985) (OP. ON REH’G).
3. THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY RULED THAT, EVEN THOUGH APPELLANT AFFIRMATIVELY STATED TO THE TRIAL COURT THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE JURY CHARGE, APPELLANT WAS NEVERTHELESS ENTITLED TO APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE ALLEGED CHARGE ERROR UNDER ALMANZA V. STATE, 686 S.W.2d 157 (TEX. CRIM. APP. 1985 (OP. ON REH’G).
02-0739/41 RYLANDER, ROBERT 09/11/02
STATE'SBEXARAGGRAVATED ASSAULT (3)
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THT RYLANDER’S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT IGNORED THE TWO PRONG TEST OF STRICKLAND REQUIRING THAT THE CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVENESS BE AFFIRMATIVELY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RYLANDER’S COUNSEL’S PERFORMANCE WAS DEFICIENT BASED ON THE RECORD BEFORE IT BECAUSE THE RECORD WAS DEVOID OF ANY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THAT COUNSELS ALLEGED ERRORS WERE NOT BASED UPON SOUND TACTICAL DECISIONS.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO PROPERLY APPLY THE PREJUDICE PRONG OF STRICKLAND WHEN THEY FOUND THAT THE TOTALITY OF COUNSEL’S REPRESENTATION UNDERMINED THEIR CONFIDENCE IN THE CONVICTION IN THE ABSENCE OF A RECORD THAT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATES THAT, BUT FOR COUNSEL’S ERROR, THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDING WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.
02-0744 MCDANIEL, BILLY WAYNE 09/18/02
STATE'SNAVARROBAIL JUMPING
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED A COMPETENCY INQUIRY BEFORE THE DEFENDANT’S PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING BECAUSE ART. 46.02, §2(a) OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE APPLIES ONLY “IN ADVANCE OF THE TRIAL ON THE MERITS.”
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN ART. 46.02, §2(a) INQUIRY WHERE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT REQUEST A §2(a) INQUIRY, PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OF INCOMPETENCE, OR COMPLAIN ABOUT THE LACK OF A §2(a) INQUIRY IN THE TRIAL COURT OR ON APPEAL.
02-0761 MARTINEZ, LUIS NARVEZ 11/13/02
APPELLANT'STARRANTPOSSESSION OF COCAINE & POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO DENY APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS HIS CONFESSION.
02-0826 HERNANDEZ, ALEXANDER 08/21/02
STATE'S DALLAS POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE
1. DOES A PRIOR INDICTMENT CHARGE THE ‘SAME OFFENSE’ AND, THUS, TOLL THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD, IF BOTH THE PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT INDICTMENTS CHARGE THE SAME CONDUCT BUT DO NOT CHARGE OFFENSES UNDER THE SAME PENAL STATUTE?
2. DOES IMPORTING A ‘SAME PENAL STATUTE’ REQUIREMENT INTO THE TOLLING PROVISION OF ARTICLE 12.05(b) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE THWART THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS.
02-0904 YOUNG, CARROL DWAYNE 09/11/02
STATE'SHARRISAGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD
1. DID THE MAJORITY OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY HOLD THAT APPELLANT PRESERVED FOR APPELLATE REVIEW HIS CONTENTION THAT THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED HIS MOTION FOR MISTRIAL, WHERE APPELLANT MOVED FOR MISTRIAL WITHOUT FIRST OBJECTING TO OR REQUESTING AN INSTRUCTION TO DISREGARD REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE TRIAL COURT BY PROSPECTIVE JUROR VALDEZ TO THE EFFECT THAT, IN HER 25 - 30 YEARS OF WORK WITH CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED, SHE NEVER HAD A SITUATION IN WHICH A CHILD WAS FOUND NOT TO BE TELLING THE TRUTH?
2. DID THE MAJORITY OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDE THAT AN INSTRUCTION TO DISREGARD COULD NOT HAVE CURED ANY HARM OR PREJUDICE RESULTING FORM THE AFORESAID REMARKS MADE BY PROSPECTIVE JUROR VALDEZ AND THE TRIAL COURT’S ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS TO HER?
02-0919 CARROLL, TIMOTHY EARL 10/23/02
APPELLANT'SPOLKAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS EXCEED THE SCOPE OF THIS COURT’S REMAND ORDER FOR A HARM ANALYSIS WHEN IT REVISITED THE PREVIOUSLY DECIDED QUESTION OF WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE RATHER THAN CONDUCTING THE CONDUCTING THE HARM ANALYSIS ORDERED.
02-0933 NONN, JAIME CHARLES 10/23/02
APPELLANT'SHIDALGOCAPITAL MURDER
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT’S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS WERE NOT IMPLICATED BY THE ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OF APPELLANT’S CONFESSION.
02-0936 ZORN, MARY 09/11/02
APPELLANT'SSMITHTERRORISTIC THREAT
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE OF TERRORISTIC THREAT IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF RETALIATION.
02-0937 WALLACE, ROBERT MARVIN 12/11/02
APPELLANT'SLAMARAGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION RESULTED FROM THE DENIAL OF A HEARING ON THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WHEN PETITIONER’S MOTION DEMONSTRATED THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXISTED THAT COULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE GRANTING OF A NEW TRIAL.
02-1015 WILLIAMS, THEODORE SARON 10/02/02
APPELLANT'SHOODFELONY D.W.I.
1. WHETHER DEFENDANTS MAY PERSONALLY PROVIDE VOICE EXEMPLARS OR OTHER DEMONSTRATIONS TO THE JURY AS PART OF THEIR DEFENSE, WITHOUT FEAR OF CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE STATE?
2. WHETHER THE JUSTICES OF THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS HAVE DISAGREED ON A MATERIAL QUESTION OF LAW NECESSARY TO THE COURT’S DECISION: THAT IS, WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S VOICE EXEMPLAR IS DEMONSTRATIVE OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE.
02-1037 TAYLOR, JEFFREY EDWARD 11/13/02
STATE'SHARRISAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THE TRIAL COURT MADE A "MISSTATEMENT OF LAW" THROUGH A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO POSED TO THE VENIRE PANEL.
2. THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN PRESUMING HARM FROM THE TRIAL COURT'S MISSTATEMENT OF LAW.
3. THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED THE WRONG HARM ANALYSIS.
4. THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THE TRIAL COURT'S ERROR TO BE HARMFUL.
02-1080 LOPEZ, ARTURO ARTEAGA 11/06/02
STATE'STARRANTDELIVERY OF COCAINE
1. WHAT IS THE “ALLOWABLE UNIT OF PROSECUTION” PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 481.112 OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT?
2. DOES THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE BAR THE STATE FROM OBTAINING CONVICTIONS FOR BOTH DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (COMMITTED BY OFFERING TO SELL THE SUBSTANCE) AND POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO DELIVER, WHEN THE OFFENSES ARE COMMITTED PURSUANT TO A CONTINUING COURSE OF CONDUCT?
02-1123 MARTINEZ, LUIS NARVEZ 11/13/02
APPELLANT'STARRANTPOSSESSION OF COCAINE & POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO DENY APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS HIS CONFESSION.
02-1251 BAGHERI, HOSSEIN 11/06/02
STATE'SBEXARMISDEMEANOR DWI
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY PRESUMING HARM BECAUSE THE COURT’S CHARGE SUBMITTED BOTH DWI THEORIES IN A SINGLE QUESTION INSTEAD OF CONDUCTING A PROPER HARM ANALYSIS.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO CONDUCT A PROPER HARM ANALYSIS BY IGNORING THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF APPELLANT’S GUILT, BY FAILING TO DETAIL THE REASONS WHY THE COURT FOUND THAT HARM DID OCCUR, AND BY RELYING ON A PRESUMPTION OF HARM IN CHARGING THE JURY ON BOTH DWI THEORIES IN A GENERAL QUESTION INSTEAD OF SPECIAL ISSUES.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION RELIES UPON A PRECEDENT TAKEN WHOLLY FROM THE CIVIL LAW FRAMEWORK FOR SUBMITTING “SPECIAL ISSUES” ON LIABILITY TO THE JURY WHICH IS IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 37.07.
02-1287 MANNING, RAYMOND 12/11/02
STATE'SAUSTINMANSLAUGHTER
1. WAS THE TRIAL COURT’S TEX. R. EVID. 403 RULING OUTSIDE THE ZONE OF REASONABLE DISAGREEMENT?
2. IS THE OVERRULING OF A DEFENDANT’S RULE 403 OBJECTION HARMFUL UNDER TRAP 44.2(b) FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THE CHALLENGED EVIDENCE “WAS THE BEST EVIDENCE THE STATE HAD TO SUPPORT” AN ALLEGATION IN THE INDICTMENT?
02-1294 ROBINSON, WILLIAM MATTHEW 11/20/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISFAILURE TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH A PROTECTED LIBERTY INTEREST SUFFICIENT TO BRING HIMSELF UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT’S PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS IMPROPERLY FOUND THAT THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION PROGRAM DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS.
02-1313 SIMS, MICHAEL 11/27/02
APPELLANT'SNAVARROCONSTRUCTIVE TRANSFER OF COCAINE
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS UTILIZE APPLICABLE LAW IN DETERMINING THAT APPELLANT WAS GUILTY OF CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE?
2. IS IT POSSIBLE TO CONSUMMATE A CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF A THIRD PARTY?
3. HOW CAN THE DETERMINATION BY ONE COURT OF APPEALS THAT LEAVING A SUBSTANCE AVAILABLE FOR A BUYER AND INSTRUCTING HIM WHERE TO RETRIEVE IT CONSTITUTES CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY, AND ANOTHER COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINING SIMILAR CONDUCT CONSTITUTES ACTUAL DELIVERY BE RESOLVED WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF THE COURT? ARE THE EQUAL PROTECTIONS OF TEXAS CITIZENS IMPLICATED BY THIS VARIANCE?
02-1354 BALQUE, MICHAEL ADONDUS 11/27/02
STATE'SHARRISAGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING
2. THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY: (1) APPLYING THE WRONG REMEDY TO A FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW-IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT’S HOLDING IN CLEWIS V. STATE, 922 S.W.2D 126 (TEX. CRIM. APP. 1996); AND (2) UTILIZING THIS COURT’S HOLDING IN COLLIER V. STATE, 999 S.W.2D 779 (TEX. CRIM. APP. 1999) UNDER A FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW.
02-1488 LYDIA, PHILLIP EARL 11/06/02
APPELLANT'STARRANTAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. THE STATE IMPROPERLY ATTEMPTED TO BIND PROSPECTIVE JURORS TO SPECIFIC FACTUAL SITUATIONS DURING THE VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
02-1543
02-1545 GHARBI, GHOLAMERZA 12/11/02
APPELLANT'SDALLASVIOLATING PROTECTIVE ORDER
3. THE STATE ALLEGED THAT EVELYN GHARBI WAS A PROTECTED PERSON AND FAILED TO OFFER ANY EVIDENCE THAT EVELYN GHARBI WAS A PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL IN THE FINAL ORDER IN CAUSE NUMBER CV0000285-V, ISSUED BY THE 292nd DISTRICT COURT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.
02-1548 SMITH, ERIC LENARD 10/30/02
STATE'SHARRISAGGRAVATED ASSAULT
1. WHETHER THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING THE TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE APPELLANT A SECOND CHANCE TO FILE A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, WHEN THE TRIAL COURT HAD ALREADY LOST JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER AN OUT-OF-TIME MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.