Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of April 17, 2006

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 can be accessed by clicking the cause number then clicking View HTML Version of Opinion.

Jones v. State, No. 02-0005-026 (Apr. 20, 2006) (op. on reh'g) (Livingston, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Walker, J., dissents with opinion).: Held: The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove that Appellant possessed 400 or more grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Under section 481.002(49) of the health and safety code, any substance that is added to or mixed with a controlled substance may be added to the drug’s aggregate weight; therefore, the bleach can be included in the aggregate weight of the liquid methamphetamine. The trial court’s failure to include an accomplice witness instruction was harmless.; Dissent: The layer of bleach, which was separate and distinct from the layer of methamphetamine, did not intermingle with the methamphetamine or increase the bulk or quantity of the methamphetamine. Therefore, the bleach did not meet the statutory definition of an adulterant or dilutant. Because the State failed to put forth any evidence that the layer of methamphetamine weighed 400 grams or more, the State failed to prove that Appellant possessed 400 or more grams of methamphetamine. Consequently, the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction.
Pheng v. Rodriguez, No. 02-0005-301 (Apr. 20, 2006) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Livingston and Holman, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not err by failing to vacate the arbitration award; the arbitrator did not exceed his authority, commit a gross mistake, or refuse to hear evidence. The arbitrator did, however, improperly award attorney's fees because there is no evidence that the fees were reasonable and necessary.
Commercial Structures & Interiors, Inc. v. Liberty Educ. Ministries, Inc., No. 02-0005-233 (Apr. 20, 2006) (Livingston, J., joined by Gardner and Walker, JJ.).: Held: Settlement agreement between bank and Appellant, a construction company hired to build a school for Appellees, which provided that Appellant “agrees to assign . . . all of its right, title and interest in and to all of its accounts receivable and all rights to payment of any kind” to the bank, when construed with rest of settlement agreement in its entirety, unambiguously evidenced an intent to assign in the future; thus, it did not effect a present transfer to the bank of amounts due under the construction contract between Appellant and Appellees. Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees on the ground that Appellant had previously assigned its right to maintain a cause of action against Appellees for recovery of amounts due under the contract.