Second Court of Appeals

Week of May 10, 2021 

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of May 10, 2021.

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.


Bolar v. State, Nos. 02-19-00357-CR, 02-19-00358-CR, 02-19-0359-CR, 02-19-00360-CR, 02-19-00361-CR, 02-19-00362-CR, 02-19-00363-CR (May 13, 2021) (Wallach, J., joined by Birdwell and Bassel, JJ.).

Held: Appellant’s seven concurrent forty-year sentences did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The gravity of Appellant’s offenses was significant—he had high culpability, he had an extensive criminal history, and his drug-related offenses inflicted significant harm on society. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has confirmed the constitutionality of sentences far more severe than Appellant’s for offenses far less grave and far less numerous than his. Thus, weighing the gravity of Appellant’s offenses against the severity of his sentences, his punishments were within the bounds of the Eighth Amendment’s proportionality guarantee.


Flores-Garnica v. State, No. 02-20-00016-CR (May 13, 2021) (Wallach, J., joined by Sudderth, C.J., and Womack, J.).

Held: The evidence sufficiently showed that the all-terrain vehicle (ATV) Appellant drove was a motor vehicle under the DWI statute. The evidence showed that the ATV could transport a person and property on a highway and that it was not exclusively used on stationary rails or tracks. Specifically, the evidence showed that Appellant drove the ATV to the store for beer and then drove it to the mobile home park on roads. Additionally, the trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury that it need not treat the judicially noticed statutory provisions as conclusive because they were not adjudicative facts.