Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of July 7, 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 (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Ctr. for Neurological Disorders, P.A. v. George, No. 02-06-00105-CV (July 10, 2008) (Op. on Remand) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Gardner and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: The expert report provided by Appellees was sufficient as to some of their health care liability claims against Appellants. However, it was not sufficient as to others under section 74.351 of the civil practice and remedies code.

Leachman v. Dretke, No. 02-07-00221-CV (July 10, 2008) (op. on reh'g) (McCoy, J., joined by Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: "Proper exhaustion" of claims subject to TDCJ's grievance procedure requires compliance with TDCJ's filing deadlines and other procedural requirements. By failing to meet the grievance filing deadline for his claims against three of the TDCJ-Appellees, as well as failing to name two of the three TDCJ-Appellees or their grievable acts in the untimely grievance, Appellant failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies. Therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to dismiss these claims with prejudice under chapter fourteen of the civil practice and remedies code.

Moore v. State, No. 02-06-00125-CR (July 10, 2008) (Gardner, J., joined by Dauphinot, J.; Cayce, C.J., concurs without opinion).: Held: Appellant and the State did not agree that Appellant's failure to appear for sentencing would convert his plea to an open plea and free the trial court to impose any sentence within the statutory range. Instead, this was an additional, non-negotiated term imposed on the plea bargain by the trial court, and the trial court made its acceptance or rejection of the plea bargain contingent upon whether Appellant complied with this term. Thus, the trial court erroneously injected itself into the plea negotiations between the State and Appellant and exceeded its authority under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 26.13. The trial court should have afforded Appellant the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty.