Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of January 14, 2008

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.

Wright v. State, No. 2-07-107-CR (Jan. 17, 2008) (Walker, J., joined by Holman, J.; Dauphinot, J., concurs with opinion). [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]: Held: While the record is clear that Wright had three years to comply with the condition of community supervision that required him to submit to sex offender treatment and that the three years had not expired at the time that the State proceeded to adjudication on the underlying offense, the former version of article 42.12, section 5(b) provides no statutory vehicle that would allow Wright to challenge what he claims to be a due process violation; thus, we are constrained by former article 42.12, section 5(b) to hold that Wright cannot challenge in this appeal the trial court's determination to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. To the extent that Wright is challenging the term of punishment imposed by the trial court, that issue is not properly before this court because Wright did not object or otherwise raise the error in the trial court.; Concurrence: This case is illustrative of the fundamental unfairness of former article 42.12, section 5(b). The statute allowed the trial court to revoke Appellant's community supervision and adjudicate his guilt with no proof of a violation of a condition of community supervision, amounting to a denial of due process, yet we are prohibited from giving Appellant any relief.

Carroll ISD v. Northwest ISD, No. 2-06-242-CV (Jan. 17, 2008) (Cayce, C.J., joined by Livingston and Dauphinot, JJ.).: Held: Appellant does not seek to detach and annex the disputed area from Appellee, but seeks only a judicial determination regarding in which of these districts the disputed area is, and always has been, located. Therefore, Texas Education Code section 13.051, which provides an administrative scheme for changing school district boundaries, does not govern Appellant's claims. Further, the alleged inapplicability of the Declaratory Judgments Act does not support the trial court's order granting Appellee's plea to the jurisdiction; moreover, Appellant is a “person” for purposes of the Act. Finally, Appellant was not required to bring a quo warranto proceeding because it has not alleged that Appellee is attempting to annex Appellant's property.

Boyer, Inc. v. Trinity River Auth. of Tex., No. 2-07-052-CV (Jan. 17, 2008) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Livingston and Walker, JJ.).: Held: Appellant seeks an amount that it claims the Appellee contracted to pay for work that Appellant has already performed, and thus, Appellant seeks direct damages, not consequential damages. Consequently, Appellee does not have immunity, and Appellant's suit on the contract is not barred by Texas Local Government Code section 271.153(b)(1).