Second Court of Appeals
Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of August 13, 2018
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.
Ex parte E.H., No. 02-17-00419-CV (Aug. 16, 2018) (Sudderth, C.J., joined by Pittman and Birdwell, JJ.).
Held: The Department of Public Safety (DPS) failed to meet all of the required elements to pursue a restricted appeal, depriving this court of jurisdiction. Specifically, DPS failed to show error on the face of the record when the applicable version of code of criminal procedure article 55.01 required expunction of E.H.’s arrest records after the court of criminal appeals, in Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), struck down as unconstitutional the statute authorizing E.H.’s indictment on two counts of online solicitation of a minor. When the indictment disappeared as a result of the trial court’s grant of habeas corpus relief because of the void statute, so too did the conditions under which E.H. was “confined” under the trial court’s deferred adjudication order. The void statute, E.H.’s subsequently granted habeas relief, and the role under the separation of powers that courts play in expunction and in the interpretation of judgments and statutes mandate expunction of E.H.’s arrest record for these offenses despite E.H.’s having pleaded guilty to them.
Ex parte McIntyre, Nos. 02-18-00163-CR, 02-18-00164-CR (Aug. 16, 2018).[1]
Held: In the capital murder case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant’s application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus and by denying bail under article I, section 11b of the Texas constitution because Appellant was effectively “released on bail pending trial” while he was a juvenile and then violated the conditions of his release, fled, and allegedly committed multiple additional felonies demonstrating his danger to the community. In the Arlington aggravated robbery case, because Texas constitution article I, section 11b does not support the trial court’s decision to deny bail and because we decline to apply the “extraordinary circumstances” exception here, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus seeking reasonable bail in the Arlington aggravated robbery case.
[1]Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2, the court on its own initiative, for good cause, has suspended the operation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.2(a) in this particular appeal.