Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of July 23, 2012

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.

Donovan v. State, No. 02-11-00033-CR (July 26, 2012) (Gabriel, J., joined by Meier, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion). [Note: both opinions at the same link.]: Held: Because the record shows that Appellant did not object to the complained-of conditions of community supervision by pursuing his motion to amend as a prerequisite to filing an application for writ of habeas corpus or by presenting written objections to the trial court at any point between the time the conditions were imposed and the adjudication hearing, he has forfeited his claims for review. The judgment is affirmed.

Dissent: The trial court abused its discretion (1) by placing Appellant on the sex offender caseload, (2) by ordering, without hearing or benefit of counsel, jail confinement as a condition of community supervision, (3) by delegating to Mike Strain the authority to set the conditions of community supervision, (4) by requiring Appellant to discuss the details of offenses of which he had been acquitted and the records of which had been expunged, (5) by requiring him to discuss uncharged sexual activity which could have been illegal, and (6) by revoking his community supervision because of his attempt to comply with the expunction statute. Appellant did not forfeit his complaint because he complained to Strain as soon as Strain explained his view of what was necessary for Appellant to successfully comply with the sex offender conditions.

Little v. State, No. 02-11-00247-CR (July 26, 2012) (Gabriel, J., joined by Livingston, C.J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion). [Note: both opinions at the same link.]: Held: The evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's revocation of Appellant's community supervision, which is the only claim Appellant preserved for review. Because one finding of true is sufficient to support revocation, the trial court's order is affirmed.

Dissent: Appellant did not forfeit his complaint on appeal because there is no evidence that he was presented with the new sex offender conditions in open court or that he had an opportunity to timely object to them in open court, and his inability to successfully navigate the legal obstacle course for protecting his due process rights should not preclude us from considering his issues on the merits. As in Donovan v. State, the trial court again abused its discretion by adding sex offender conditions to Appellant's community supervision conditions and by revoking Appellant's community supervision and adjudicating his guilt based on his alleged violation of those unlawful conditions.

Ex parte Brooks, No. 02-12-00249-CR (July 26, 2012) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Meier, J.; Gabriel, J., dissents with opinion). [Note: both opinions at the same link.]: Held: The trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant's motion to reduce his pretrial bond from $750,000 in this noncapital first degree felony case when the evidence shows that neither he nor his family could pay the bond company the required 10% of the bond; that his prior criminal history included only two nonviolent misdemeanor convictions; that he appeared for all his court settings and surrendered himself to the jail to serve his sentence; that he planned to remain in the community if released; and that he was shot and wounded by the complainant but fired no shots during their altercation; and there was no evidence that he was a flight risk or had outstanding warrants or bonds.

Dissent: The trial court did not abuse its discretion to set a high bond for a person with little to no proven ties to the community who is held pending trial for assaulting a police officer with a deadly weapon because the bond was within the range that has been upheld for other first degree felonies.