Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of July 30, 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.

Aldridge v. Thrift Fin. Mktg., LLC, No. 02-11-00492-CV  (Aug. 2, 2012) (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and Gabriel, J.).

Held:  The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's motion to compel arbitration. The arbitration agreement is enforceable only by members of the company, and the agreement expressly excludes former members from the definition of member. Appellant voluntarily resigned as a member of the company and thus does not have the contractual right to compel arbitration.

Fleming v. State, No. 02-09-00215-CR  (Aug. 2, 2012) (Meier, J., joined by Gardner, J., and William Brigham, J. (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment)).

Held:  Under both the federal Due Process Clause and Texas's own due course of law provision, there is no fundamental right entitling Appellant to a mistake-of-age defense or to a requirement by the State to demonstrate a culpable mental state regarding Texas Penal Code section 22.021. Despite the general requirement of a culpable mental state in criminal statutes, the well-accepted legislative purpose for omitting scienter regarding the victim's age in a statutory-rape scheme does not offend substantive due process. Furthermore, strict liability regarding section 22.021 furthers the legitimate government interest in protecting children.

Hernandez v. State, No. 02-11-00030-CR   (Aug. 2, 2012)   (per curiam).

Facts:  Appellant was arrested for DWI after a police officer noticed his car parked in an empty business parking lot late at night with its headlights and left turn signal on and driver's door open. The trial court held two suppression hearings and denied Appellant's motion to suppress at each. Appellant pled guilty and appealed. The record from the second suppression hearing was lost. On abatement, the trial court found that the lost record was not necessary to resolve the appeal.

Held:  The record does not reasonably support a conclusion that Appellant's initial encounter with law enforcement was justified by either reasonable suspicion or community caretaking, and the record is inconclusive on the issue of whether the initial encounter was a voluntary encounter. But the record also indicates that the trial court considered evidence in the second hearing germane to voluntary encounter that it did not consider in the first hearing. Therefore, the trial court incorrectly found that the lost record is not necessary to the resolution of this appeal and Appellant was harmed thereby. The denial of Appellant's motion to suppress is vacated, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Leonard v. State, No. 02-12-00031-CR   (Aug. 2, 2012)   (Walker, J., joined by Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.).

Held:  Focusing on the literal text of the statute and presuming that the legislature intended for the entire statutory scheme to be effective, we hold that article 44.04(c) authorizes the trial court to set reasonable conditions of bail pending appeal, including pending disposition of a petition for discretionary review filed by the State after an incarcerated defendant's conviction is reversed by a court of appeals and after the court of criminal appeals has set the amount of bail pursuant to article 44.04(h).

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «