GRANTED PDRS THROUGH 9/11/02
PETITIONS GRANTED THIS WEEK
01-1748/9 BROWDER, BRUCE 09/11/02 S TARRANT SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD
1. THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT APPLIED A DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW AND REJECTED THE TRIAL COURT’S FACT FINDINGS EVEN THOUGH THE FINDINGS WERE PREMISED ON MATTERS DESERVING DEFERENCE WHICH WERE SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.
2. THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE STATE’S REVOCATION PETITION FOR A LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE STATE IN EXECUTING THE ARREST WARRANTS.
01-2377 PEEK, ROSANNA 09/11/02 A DALLAS RECKLESS INJURY TO A CHILD
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO REOPEN AND OFFER CERTAIN MEDICAL RECORDS.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT AN UNREASONABLE DELAY WOULD OCCUR IF THE DEFENSE WAS ALLOWED TO REOPEN.
01-2378 PEEK, ROBERT 09/11/02 A DALLAS RECKLESS INJURY TO A CHILD
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO REOPEN AND OFFER CERTAIN MEDICAL RECORDS.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT AN UNREASONABLE DELAY WOULD OCCUR IF THE DEFENSE WAS ALLOWED TO REOPEN.
02-0421 CATES, JOHNNY WELDON II 09/11/02 A HARRIS FAILURE TO STOP AND RENDER AID
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE DEADLY WEAPON FINDING.
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION MATERIALLY MISSTATES THE FACTS AND REASONABLE, RATIONAL INFERENCES AND IN SO DOING, ERRONEOUSLY FINDS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE DEADLY WEAPON FINDING.
02-0462 RICKELS, TERRY N. 09/11/02 S BEE INDECENCY WITH A CHILD BY TOUCHING & EXPOSURE
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A CONDITION OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROHIBITED APPELLANT FROM GOING “WITHIN THREE HUNDRED (300) FEET OF ANY PREMISES WHERE CHILDREN 17 YEARS OR YOUNGER CONGREGATE OR GATHER” WAS TOO VAGUE TO BE ENFORCED, BECAUSE THE CONDITION DID NOT SPECIFY HOW THE CHILD SAFETY ZONE WAS TO BE MEASURED.
02-0539 ZUNIGA, JOSE 09/11/02 S LYNN MANSLAUGHTER
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS REVIEW OF THE FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE INSTANT CASE CONFLICTS WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS RELIANCE UPON INCONSISTENCY IN THE JURY’S VERDICT TO SUPPORT ITS HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENCY CONFLICTS WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
02-0739/41 RYLANDER, ROBERT 09/11/02 S BEXAR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT (3)
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THT RYLANDER’S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT IGNORED THE TWO PRONG TEST OF STRICKLAND REQUIRING THAT THE CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVENESS BE AFFIRMATIVELY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RYLANDER’S COUNSEL’S PERFORMANCE WAS DEFICIENT BASED ON THE RECORD BEFORE IT BECAUSE THE RECORD WAS DEVOID OF ANY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THAT COUNSELS ALLEGED ERRORS WERE NOT BASED UPON SOUND TACTICAL DECISIONS.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO PROPERLY APPLY THE PREJUDICE PRONG OF STRICKLAND WHEN THEY FOUND THAT THE TOTALITY OF COUNSEL’S REPRESENTATION UNDERMINED THEIR CONFIDENCE IN THE CONVICTION IN THE ABSENCE OF A RECORD THAT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATES THAT, BUT FOR COUNSEL’S ERROR, THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDING WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.
02-0839 LEBO, SEAN 09/11/02 A BEXAR ASSAULT OF ELDERLY PERSON
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLODING THAT TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 44.04(b) DOES NOT PERMIT A DEFENDANT CONVICTED BY A JURY AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS PROBATION IS NOT ENTITLED TO BAIL PENDING APPEAL.
02-0904 YOUNG, CARROL DWAYNE 09/11/02 S HARRIS AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD
1. DID THE MAJORITY OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY HOLD THAT APPELLANT PRESERVED FOR APPELLATE REVIEW HIS CONTENTION THAT THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED HIS MOTION FOR MISTRIAL, WHERE APPELLANT MOVED FOR MISTRIAL WITHOUT FIRST OBJECTING TO OR REQUESTING AN INSTRUCTION TO DISREGARD REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE TRIAL COURT BY PROSPECTIVE JUROR VALDEZ TO THE EFFECT THAT, IN HER 25 - 30 YEARS OF WORK WITH CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED, SHE NEVER HAD A SITUATION IN WHICH A CHILD WAS FOUND NOT TO BE TELLING THE TRUTH?
2. DID THE MAJORITY OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDE THAT AN INSTRUCTION TO DISREGARD COULD NOT HAVE CURED ANY HARM OR PREJUDICE RESULTING FORM THE AFORESAID REMARKS MADE BY PROSPECTIVE JUROR VALDEZ AND THE TRIAL COURT’S ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS TO HER?
02-0936 ZORN, MARY 09/11/02 A SMITH TERRORISTIC THREAT
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE OF TERRORISTIC THREAT IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF RETALIATION.
ALPHABETICAL LISTING WITHOUT ISSUES, WITH COURT OF APPEALS CITE
00-2115 AGUIRRE-MATA, MARCELINO 05/30/01 A HARRIS 026 922
01-2066/7 ALDRICH, DANA MICHELLE 02/13/02 A DALLAS 053 460
02-0435 ALONZO, ALEXANDER 07/31/02 S HARRIS 067 346
01-1936 ALZARKA, LOUBABA 01/09/02 A WASHINGTON
02-0070 ARMENDARIZ, JOSE FRANCO 06/19/02 S ECTOR 063 572
01-1670 ARROYO, TONY 06/19/02 A BEXAR 064 810
01-1221 BABIN, JOHN 10/31/01 A HARRIS 044 690
01-1225 BABIN, JOHN ALLEN 10/31/01 A HARRIS 044 690
01-1220 BAILEY, BRENDA SUE 10/31/01 A HARRIS 044 690
01-1229 BAILEY, BRENDA SUE 10/31/01 A HARRIS 044 690
01-2189 BAILEY, HAROLD WAYNE 03/27/02 A HARRIS
01-0056 BAYLESS, DEANNEE ANN 05/16/01 A HUNT
01-0519 BEAL, DANIEL LOUIS 09/12/01 A HARRIS 035 677
00-0282 BEARD, WILLIAM E 06/07/00 A DALLAS 005 883
01-1079 BEEMAN, KNOWEL, JR. 10/03/01 A MIDLAND
01-1887 BISHOP, MARTHA LYNN 01/16/02 A HARRIS
01-1748/9 BROWDER, BRUCE 09/11/02 S TARRANT
01-2475 BROWN, HENRY 04/10/02 A SMITH
01-0288 BROWN, RASHANN MAURICE 06/20/01 S NAVARRO 035 183
01-0860 BURNETT, DEVIN LYNN 09/19/01 S DENTON
01-2012/6 CASTENEDA, OCTOVIO 02/06/02 A HIDALGO 055 729
02-0421 CATES, JOHNNY WELDON II 09/11/02 A HARRIS 066 404
01-0542 CHAVEZ, RICHARD, JR. 09/12/01 S POTTER 034 692
01-2476/7 COLBERT, DERORY DEWAYNE 04/10/02 S DALLAS 056 857
01-1224 COLEMAN, CHARLES 10/31/01 A HARRIS 044 690
01-1226 COLEMAN, CHARLES FRANCIS 10/31/01 A HARRIS 044 690
02-0254 DOE, JOHN 06/05/02 S DALLAS 061 99
01-1733 DRAGOO, RANDY LEE 03/06/02 S TARRANT
01-1794 DYAR, BRADLEY ROBERT 12/05/01 A BASTROP
01-1609 ELLISON, BOBBY JOE 12/19/01 S GREGG 051 393
02-0400 FAISST, LINDSAY M. 07/31/02 A SMITH
01-2156 FREEMAN, CONSUELO 03/27/02 S NUECES
99-0469 GILMORE, ERIC JEROME 06/23/99 S EASTLAND
01-1784 GRAY, DEMARKUS JOSEPH 01/09/02 A GREGG 051 856
01-0236 GRAY, TERRY 01/30/02 A HARRIS
01-2082/5 GREGORY, GLENN GORDON 03/20/02 A HARRIS 056 164
00-1647 GUAJARDO, JOSE FIDEL 02/14/01 S NUECES 024 423
02-0358 GUTIERREZ, ELOY JAMES 06/19/02 S NUECES 065 362
01-1437 HAILEY, BOBBY 01/09/02 S NAVARRO 050 636
01-0499 HAMPTON, LEON, JR. 04/24/02 S ECTOR 036 921
00-1865 HART, ROBERT WARD 05/23/01 S HARRIS
02-0826 HERNANDEZ, ALEXANDER 08/21/02 S DALLAS 074 73
01-2053 HERNANDEZ, ARTURO CHAVEZ 03/20/02 S KLEBERG 055 701
00-0818 HERNANDEZ, JOHN 09/20/00 S BEXAR 018 699
01-1743 HIGHFILL, MICHAEL 01/30/02 A TRAVIS
01-1385 HILL, SAMUEL B. 11/28/01 S TARRANT
00-1329 HROMADKA, DARLENE 01/10/01 A HARRIS
01-0827 HUTCHINSON, CLYDE T., JR. 09/12/01 A HARRISON 042 336
00-1084 JONES, PATRICK ALLEN 10/18/00 A FORT BEND
01-2099 KELLAR, RANDALL NORMAN 04/24/02 A DALLAS
99-1868 KERSH, PHILLIP WAYNE 02/23/00 A HARRIS 002 636
02-0839 LEBO, SEAN 09/11/02 A BEXAR 075 591
01-1756 LEHRMAN, RICHARD GLENN 12/19/01 A TARRANT
01-1004 LOGAN, NANCY 11/14/01 S TITUS 048 296
01-1742 LOPEZ, RUDOLPHO 02/06/02 S BEXAR
01-2116 MANZI, JONATHAN 02/06/02 A HARRIS 056 710
99-0765 MARABLE, WILLIAM R. 09/29/99 A TARRANT 990 421
00-0646 MARBELLA, JOSEPH, III 02/07/01 S NACOGDOCHES
02-0344 MARTINEZ, CERJIO 06/26/02 S EL PASO
02-0185 MARTINEZ, CHRISTINA 06/12/02 S SMITH
01-0587 McCLINTON, HAROLD, JR. 09/12/01 S HARRIS 038 747
00-1408 McGEE, DANNY JOE, II 11/08/00 S HARRIS 023 156
99-1802 McLAREN, RICHARD LANCE 03/22/00 S BREWSTER 002 595
01-0817 MENDEZ, JOHN BUSTAMONTE 09/12/01 A TAYLOR 042 347
01-1938 MENDOZA, PIOQUINTO III 02/13/02 A WEBB
01-1263 MIDDLETON, DAVID WAYNE 10/24/01 A WISE
01-2243 MISCHKE, JOHN THOMAS 04/24/02 A BRAZOS
01-2444 MIZELL, CHARLES W., JR. 06/12/02 A BEXAR 070 156
01-2289 MONREAL JR., ALFREDO 03/13/02 A TARRANT
01-2093 MOSES, SHANNON EUGENE 01/09/02 S HARRIS
01-2330 OSBOURN, VICKI C. 05/08/02 A AUSTIN 059 809
99-1801 OTTO, ROBERT "WHITE EAGLE" 03/22/00 S BREWSTER 002 595
01-2378 PEEK, ROBERT 09/11/02 A DALLAS
01-2377 PEEK, ROSANNA 09/11/02 A DALLAS
01-2127 PEREZ, DAVID FRANCISCO 02/20/02 S TAYLOR 056 796
02-0201 PETERSON, JAMES MICHAEL 04/10/02 S COLLIN
01-1464 RAMIREZ, LETICIA MARIACA 10/31/01 S SMITH
01-1410 REED, ANTHONY JAMES 12/19/01 A DALLAS
01-2355 REX, MARY ELAINE 05/08/02 S GILLESPIE
02-0462 RICKELS, TERRY N. 09/11/02 S BEE 069 775
99-2055 RIOS, DANIEL, JR. 04/12/00 S HARRIS 004 400
00-1939 ROBBINS, NEAL HAMPTON 04/18/01 A MONTGOMERY 027 245
00-1305 ROBLES, MICHAEL GREGORY 11/29/00 S HARRIS 020 162
01-1164 RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS 10/10/01 A WICHITA 045 685
01-0290 RODRIGUEZ, JOHNNY 05/16/01 A COMAL 031 772
01-1412 ROGERS, BOBBY RAY 12/05/01 S DALLAS
01-1718 ROY, RAYMOND JOSEPH 03/06/02 A CAMERON 055 153
02-0739/41 RYLANDER, ROBERT 09/11/02 S BEXAR 075 119
01-0045 SALAZAR, ALBERT 04/25/01 S NUECES 031 726
01-2180 SALAZAR, PEDRO 05/22/02 A DALLAS
01-0050 SANCHEZ, ARTHUR GARCIA 05/09/01 S BEXAR 032 687
02-0612 SAUCEDA, KEVIN 08/21/02 A HARRIS
99-1104/5 SCHMIDT, ERIC BRIAN 09/29/99 A HARRIS
01-1222 SCHNUR, JAMES 10/31/01 A HARRIS 044 690
01-1228 SCHNUR, JAMES ARNOLD 10/31/01 A HARRIS 044 690
01-1223 SCHNUR, RALPH 10/31/01 A HARRIS 044 690
01-1227 SCHNUR, RALPH 10/31/01 A HARRIS 044 690
00-0471 SEXTON, DANIEL RAHIM 05/10/00 A BEXAR 012 517
01-2031 SHANKLE, BRUCE WAYNE 02/13/02 S BELL 059 756
01-1328 SIMS, SCOTT EVERETT 12/05/01 A HARRIS
02-0100 SOLIZ, DAVID S. 05/15/02 S FORT BEND 060 163
00-1730/2 SOULAS, JUAN JOSE 02/14/01 S NUECES
00-1023 STEELMAN, IAN 09/27/00 S TAYLOR 016 483
00-1022 STEELMAN, LEO 09/27/00 S TAYLOR 016 483
01-2181 STEVENSON-GRAY, JACQUELINE 04/24/02 A BRAZOS
01-1699 STURGEON, RICHARD GLEN 01/30/02 A HARRIS
01-0183 SUNBURY, DONALD PETER 05/23/01 S HARRIS 033 436
00-0652 TAYLOR, PHILIP DANIEL 10/31/01 S BRAZOS
01-2360 TREVINO, TOMMY 03/27/02 S TARRANT 060 188
01-1932 TURNER, MARCUS 02/06/02 S TARRANT 049 461
01-2115 WATTS, JOHN 03/06/02 A HARRIS 056 694
01-0875 WELCH, PHOEBE 01/09/02 A CASTRO
02-0066 WHITLOCK, TARRANCE DARON 05/29/02 A DALLAS
01-2365 WOODS, OTIS DON 04/10/02 S HARRIS 059 833
00-1555 YEAGER, MICHAEL JOHN 02/20/02 S TARRANT 023 566
02-0904 YOUNG, CARROL DWAYNE 09/11/02 S HARRIS 073 482
02-0936 ZORN, MARY 09/11/02 A SMITH
01-1168 ZULIANI, GERALD CHRISTOPHER 10/10/01 A TRAVIS 052 825
02-0539 ZUNIGA, JOSE 09/11/02 S LYNN
NUMERICAL LISTING WITH ISSUES GRANTED
99-0469 GILMORE, ERIC JEROME 06/23/99
STATE'SEASTLANDAGGRAVATED ASSAULT
1. WHETHER EVIDENCE OF A LESSER OFFENSE NECESSARILY RAISED A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE SUCH AS TO REQUIRE A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY?
2. WHETHER EVIDENCE OF A LESSER OFFENSE ALONE IS SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A LESSER-INCLUDED INSTRUCTION, OR WHETHER THE LESSER OFFENSE MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE PROOF NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE CHARGED OFFENSE?
99-0765 MARABLE, WILLIAM R. 09/29/99
APPELLANT'STARRANTDELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
4. WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE THEORY OF CULPABILITY BY WHICH THE STATE WOULD SEEK CONVICTION FOR DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE?
99-1104/5 SCHMIDT, ERIC BRIAN 09/29/99
APPELLANT'SHARRISHABEAS CORPUS
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FAILING TO GRANT HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, WHERE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT APPELLANT DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.
99-1801 OTTO, ROBERT "WHITE EAGLE" 03/22/00
99-1802 McLAREN, RICHARD LANCE 03/22/00
STATE'SBREWSTERENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
1. WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IS CHARGED WITH ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY HAVING CONSPIRED TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE AND HAVING PERFORMED AN OVERT ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, CAN THE INDIVIDUAL'S PERFORMANCE OF SAID OVERT ACT BE ESTABLISHED BY PROOF THAT HE WAS CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE AS A PARTY FOR ANOTHER'S COMMISSION OF SAID OVERT ACT?
99-1868 KERSH, PHILLIP WAYNE 02/23/00
APPELLANT'SHARRISFELONY POSSESSION
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS MISCONSTRUED CHAPTER 44 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHEN THE COURT ASSUMED JURISDICTION OF THE STATE'S APPEAL
99-2055 RIOS, DANIEL JR. 04/12/00
STATE'SHARRISAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE THE PROPER DEFERENCE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN CONDUCTING VOIR DIRE.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IMPOSING AN IMPROPER RESTRICTION ON VOIR DIRE IS CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SUMMARILY REVERSING THE CONVICTION WITHOUT CONDUCTING A MEANINGFUL HARM ANALYSIS UNDER RULE 44.2(B) OF THE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE.
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IMPROPER LIMITATION OF DEFENSE VOIR DIRE IS ANALYZED FOR HARM UNDER RULE 44.2(A) OF THE TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE IMPROPER LIMITATION OF DEFENSE VOIR DIRE IN THIS CASE WAS HARMFUL WERE THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE JURY WAS NOT FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.
00-0282 BEARD, WILLIAM E 06/07/00
APPELLANT'SDALLASDWI
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE RESULTS OF AN INTOXILYZER TEST WITHOUT FIRST REQUIRING THE STATE TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF KELLY V. STATE - IN CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN KELLY AND HARTMAN.
00-0471 SEXTON, DANIEL RAHIM 05/10/00
APPELLANT'SBEXARAGGRAVATED ASSAULT
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY UPHOLDING ADMISSION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY CONCERNING IDENTIFICATION OF UNFIRED SHELL CASINGS UNDER DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), AND KELLY V. STATE, 824//568 (1992).
00-0646 MARBELLA, JOSEPH, III 02/07/01
STATE'SNACOGDOCHESTHEFT
1. IS THE REFUSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE STATE TO AGREE TO THE DEFENDANT'S OFFER TO STIPULATE TO TWO PRIOR CONVICTIONS, NECESSARY AS JURISDICTIONAL ELEMENTS, ERROR WHERE NO ADDITIONAL PRIOR CONVICTIONS ARE ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT?
00-0652 TAYLOR, PHILIP DANIEL 10/31/01
STATE'SBRAZOSINTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER
1. WHERE A JURY RETURNS A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY, NECESSARILY BASED UPON A NEGATIVE FINDING REGARDING A SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED MANNER OR MEANS OF PROVING AN ULTIMATE ISSUE, IS THE STATE PRECLUDED FROM RELITIGATING THE SAME ULTIMATE ISSUE, BASED UPON A DIFFERENT MANNER OR MEANS, IN A SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES?
2. DOES A JURY VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY IN A INTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER PROSECUTION, NECESSARILY BASED UPON A NEGATIVE FINDING REGARDING INTOXICATION BY ALCOHOL, PRECLUDE THE STATE FROM RELITIGATING THE ISSUE OF INTOXICATION BY ALCOHOL AND MARIHUANA IN A SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION FOR INTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES?
00-0818 HERNANDEZ, JOHN 09/20/00
STATE'SBEXARDWI
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT'S OFFER TO STIPULATE TO HIS PRIOR DWI CONVICTIONS WAS PROPER BECAUSE THE PROPOSED STIPULATION WAS CONDITIONED ON THE STATE'S BEING BARRED FROM MENTIONING OR REFERRING TO THE PRIOR DWI CONVICTIONS BEFORE THE JURY.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT'S OFFER TO STIPULATE TO HIS PRIOR DWI CONVICTIONS WAS PROPER BECAUSE THE PROPOSED STIPULATION WOULD PREVENT THE STATE FROM READING THE TWO JURISDICTIONALLY REQUIRED DWI CONVICTIONS TO THE JURY IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THIS COURT'S OPINION IN TAMEZ V. STATE.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT'S MOTION TO STIPULATE TO HIS PRIOR DWI CONVICTIONS WAS "PROPER" BECAUSE THE MOTION WAS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE EVIDENCE FROM THE JURY, AND IF GRANTED, THE MOTION WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE STATE FROM READING THE JURISDICTIONALLY REQUIRED TWO PREVIOUS DWI CONVICTIONS TO THE JURY.
00-1022 STEELMAN, LEO 09/27/00
00-1023 STEELMAN, IAN 09/27/00
STATE'STAYLORPOSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
1. WHETHER ENTRY INTO A RESIDENCE AND SEIZURE OF THE OCCUPANTS (INCLUDING ARREST) TO PREVENT DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE AFTER LAWFUL DETECTION OF THE ODOR OF BURNING MARIJUANA IS UNREASONABLE PER SE.
2. WHETHER PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH, LAWFULLY OBTAINED BEFORE ENTRY INTO A RESIDENCE AND SEIZURE OF OCCUPANTS, IS TAINTED BY THE ENTRY AND SEIZURE, REQUIRING SUPPRESSION OF THE FRUITS OF THE SEARCH IN GOOD FAITH RELIANCE ON A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED BY A NEUTRAL MAGISTRATE BASED ONLY ON THAT PROBABLE CAUSE.
3. WHETHER ENTRY AND SEIZURE OF THE OCCUPANTS BEGINS A "SEARCH" THOUGH ALL SEARCHING IS DONE IN GOOD FAITH RELIANCE ON A SEARCH WARRANT, ISSUED BY A NEUTRAL MAGISTRATE, AND NO EVIDENCE WAS DISCOVERED BEFORE ITS EXECUTION.
00-1084 JONES, PATRICK ALLEN 10/18/00
APPELLANT'SFORT BENDSEXUAL ASSAULT
1. COUNSEL WAS ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW FROM THIS CASE AFTER SENTENCING, BUT THE TRIAL COURT DENIED HIS MOTION TO APPOINT APPELLATE COUNSEL(WITH AN ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFENDANT'S INDIGENCY). WAS THE DEFENDANT ALSO REQUIRED TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL IN ORDER TO APPRIZE THE TRIAL COURT OF HIS DESIRE TO APPEAL?
00-1305 ROBLES, MICHAEL GREGORY 11/29/00
STATE'SHARRISFELONY DWI
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT, UNDER TEX. R. EVID. 403, THE TRIAL JUDGE NECESSARILY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION, WHEN HE REFUSED TO REQUIRE THE STATE TO ACCEPT THE APPELLANT'S STIPULATION AS TO HIS TWO PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR DWI, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY AND UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THOSE TWO PRIOR CONVICTIONS, AND EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS LITTLE OR NO POSSIBILITY THAT A TRIAL JUDGE OR A JURY WOULD IMPROPERLY FOCUS ON THE PRIOR CONVICTIONS OR THE APPELLANT'S BAD CHARACTER.
1. IS THE REFUSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE STATE TO AGREE TO THE DEFENDANT'S OFFER TO STIPULATE TO TWO PRIOR CONVICTIONS, NECESSARY AS JURISDICTIONAL ELEMENTS, ERROR WHERE NO ADDITIONAL PRIOR CONVICTIONS ARE ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT?
00-1329 HROMADKA, DARLENE 01/10/01
APPELLANT'S HARRIS D.W.I.
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING HER REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO ART., 38.23, V.A.C.C.P., ON THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS SHE PERFORMED WAS WAIVED WHEN SHE FAILED TO OBJECT TO THIS EVIDENCE WHEN IT WAS OFFERED AT TRIAL.
00-1408 McGEE, DANNY JOE, II 11/08/00
STATE'SHARRISPOSS. OF COCAINE
1.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING APPELLANT'S ESCAPE WAS NOT IMMINENT, AND THEREBY FINDING THAT APPELLANT'S WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ARTICLE 14.04.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE TIP LEADING THEM TO APPELLANT WAS NOT CORROBORATED, AND THEREBY FINDING THAT APPELLANT'S WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ARTICLE 14.01.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT FOUND IN A SUSPICIOUS PLACE, AND THEREBY FINDING THAT APPELLANT'S WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ARTICLE 14.03.
4. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE SEARCH OF APPELLANT WAS UNREASONABLE (STRIP SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST).
00-1555 YEAGER, MICHAEL JOHN 02/20/02
STATE'STARRANTDWI
1. MUST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS INTEND TO DETAIN AN INTOXICATED DRIVER WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION IN ORDER TO LATER DETAIN HIM OUTSIDE THEIR JURISDICTION UNDER THE “HOT PURSUIT” DOCTRINE?
00-1647 GUAJARDO, JOSE FIDEL 02/14/01
STATE'SNUECESPOSSESSION OF COCAINE
4. DOES THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BAR A D.A. FROM LITIGATING A SUPPRESSION ISSUE IN DISTRICT COURT WHEN THE D.A. WAS NOT THE PARTY WHO LITIGATED THE ISSUE IN COUNTY COURT?
5. IS A PRETRIAL RULING ON REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP, OR PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, A RULING REGARDING AN ULTIMATE FACT, OR MERELY, AS OTHER COURTS HAVE HELD, A RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE WHICH CANNOT SERVE AS THE BASIS OF A COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BAR TO RE-LITIGATION OF THE ISSUE IN ANOTHER COURT ON ANOTHER CASE?
6. DOES JEOPARDY ATTACH IN A PRETRIAL HEARING ON A MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND IS A PRETRIAL RULING ON REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP OR PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST, ON A CASE THAT IS SUBSEQUENTLY DISMISSED, A FINAL JUDGMENT, OR MERELY, AS OTHER COURTS HAVE HELD, A RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE WHICH CANNOT SERVE AS THE BASIS OF A COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BAR TO RE-LITIGATION OF THAT ISSUE IN ANOTHER COURT ON ANOTHER CASE?
7. IS THERE A DUE PROCESS BASIS, INDEPENDENT OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE, FOR APPLICATION OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, AND IF SO, DOES IT APPLY WHERE THE FIRST PROCEEDING DID NOT END IN A FINAL JUDGMENT?
9. WHERE NO DOCUMENT FROM THE COUNTY COURT CASE AN NO REPORTER'S RECORD FROM THE COUNTY COURT'S SUPPRESSION HEARING WERE INTRODUCED AT THE HEARING IN THIS CASE AND ARE THEREFORE NOT PART OF THE APPELLATE RECORD, HAS APPELLANT CARRIED HIS BURDEN OF PRESENTING A RECORD THAT AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWS HIS ENTITLEMENT TO RELIEF ON HIS SPECIAL PLEA, OR HAS HIS FAILURE TO DEVELOP A PROPER RECORD BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT RESULTING IN AN INADEQUATE RECORD IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TO PASS ON THE ISSUES HE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW?
10. IS THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION -- WHICH IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH PUBLISHED OPINIONS FROM TWO OTHER COURTS OF APPEALS IN CASES WITH ISSUES AND FACT NEARLY IDENTICAL TO THOSE IN THIS CASE BUT WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE DECISION IN THIS CASE -- CORRECT?
00-1730/2 SOULAS, JUAN JOSE 02/14/01
STATE'SNUECES INTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER, INTOXICATION ASSAULT, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE STANDARD FOR REVIEWING THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT APPELLANT OPERATED A MOTOR VEHICLE.
00-1865 HART, ROBERT WARD 05/23/01
STATE'SHARRISORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
1. DOES A PERSON HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF A COMBINATION IN ORDER TO COMMIT THE OFFENSE OF ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?
2. DOES A PERSON COMMIT THE OFFENSE OF ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IF, WITH THE INTENT TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, OR PARTICIPATE IN A COMBINATION OR THE PROFITS OF A COMBINATION, THE PERSON COMMITS OR CONSPIRES TO COMMIT ONE OF THE CRIMES LISTED IN THE PENAL CODE §17.02(a)?
00-1939 ROBBINS, NEAL HAMPTON 04/18/01
APPELLANT'SMONTGOMERYCAPITAL MURDER
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO ADMIT EXTRANEOUS ACTS UNDER TEX.R.EVID. 404(b) INVOLVING THE VICTIM AND APPELLANT.
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO ADMIT EXTRANEOUS ACTS UNDER TEX.R.EVID. 403.
00-2115 AGUIRRE-MATA, MARCELINO 05/30/01
APPELLANT'SHARRISPOSSESSION W/INTENT TO DELIVER HEROIN
1. THIS PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED TO REVIEW THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S TOTAL FAILURE TO ADMONISH THE APPELLANT AS TO THE RANGE OF PUNISHMENT WAS NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR AND HARMLESS ERROR BECAUSE IT DID NOT AFFECT THE APPELLANT'S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.
01-0045 SALAZAR, ALBERT 04/25/01
STATE'SNUECESAGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT (2), INDECENCY WITH A CHILD (2), AND ATTEMPTED AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. IS A DEFENDANT'S JUDICIAL CONFESSION THAT HE COMMITTED THE SAME OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE WAS INDICTED, ALBEIT A DIFFERENT MANNER THAN ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT, SUFFICIENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE `CORPUS DELICTI RULE' TO CORROBORATE HIS EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION UPON WHICH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INDICTMENT WERE BASED?
2. IS APPELLANT'S JUDICIAL CONFESSION THAT HE PLACED A CHILD'S PENIS "ON" HIS MOUTH SUFFICIENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE `CORPUS DELICT RULE' TO CORROBORATE HIS EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION THAT HE PLACED THE CHILD'S PENIS "IN" HIS MOUTH?
3. IS APPELLANT'S JUDICIAL CONFESSION THAT HE PLACED A CHILD'S PENIS `ON' HIS MOUTH, COMBINED WITH HIS EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION THAT HE PLACED THE CHILD'S PENIS "IN" HIS MOUTH, THE CHILD'S OUTCRY THAT APPELLANT KISSED HIS PRIVATE PARTS, AND OTHER EVIDENCE AT TRIAL, SUFFICIENT [TO] SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT BY CAUSING THE CHILD'S PENIS TO PENETRATE APPELLANT'S MOUTH?
01-0050 SANCHEZ, ARTHUR GARCIA 05/09/01
STATE'SBEXAROFFICIAL OPPRESSION
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW HIS CONTENTION THAT THE AMENDED INDICTMENT FAILED TO ALLEGE CONDUCT THAT WAS CRIMINAL BECAUSE IT FAILED TO ALLEGE THE CULPABLE MENTAL STATE.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT CONDUCT A PROPER HARM ANALYSIS OF THE ALLEGED NOTICE OF DEFECT IN THE INDICTMENT.
01-0056 BAYLESS, DEANNEE ANN 05/16/01
APPELLANT'S HUNTMURDER
1. DOES TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2 PERMIT A DEFENDANT WHO HAS ENTERED A PLEA PURSUANT TO A PLEA BARGAIN WITH THE STATE TO FILE AN OUT OF TIME AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL WHERE THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS ONLY A GENERAL NOTICE?
01-0183 SUNBURY, DONALD PETER 05/23/01
STATE'SHARRISROBBERY
1. IS IT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR A TRIAL COURT TO EXCLUDE FROM THE JURY AT PUNISHMENT THE SENTENCES RECENTLY ASSESSED BY TWO OTHER JURIES FOR SIMILAR OFFENSES BY THE SAME DEFENDANT?
01-0236 GRAY, TERRY 01/30/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. THIS PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED DUE TO A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE JUSTICES, BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OPINION THAT TRIAL COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE IN HAVING HIS CLIENT PLEAD GUILTY TO AGGRAVATED ROBBERY WITH A DEADLY WEAPON WHERE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CONFER WITH HIS CLIENT AND DID NOT DISCOVER HIS CLIENT’S VERSION THAT THE OBJECT WAS A “TOY CAP PISTOL” UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE SENTENCING HEARING, AND THE 13 PAGE EXHAUSTIVE, COMPELLING DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE BAIRD CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE.
2. THIS PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OPINION OF THE 14TH COURT OF APPEALS HEREIN ON WITHDRAWAL OF A GUILTY PLEA CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT’S HOLDING IN A FACTUALLY IDENTICAL CASE OF PAYNE V. STATE, 790 S.W.2d 649 (TEX. CRIM.APP. 1990).
01-0288 BROWN, RASHANN MAURICE 06/20/01
STATE'SNAVARROTAKING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO A JAIL
1. WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS CHARGED WITH TAKING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, IS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT VOLUNTARILY ENGAGED IN CONDUCT PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE, SEC. 6.01(a), BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS TRANSPORTED INTO THE JAIL AGAINST HIS WILL?
01-0290 RODRIGUEZ, JOHNNY 05/16/01
APPELLANT'S COMALDELIVERY OF COCAINE TO A MINOR (ENHANCED)
1. WHERE THE INDICTMENT ON ITS FACE ALLEGES ONLY ONE (1) OCCURRENCE OF DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, DOES SLEDGE V. STATE, 953//253 (1997), ALLOW THE INTRODUCTION OF 20 TO 30 PRIOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE DELIVERIES TO THE SAME PERSON UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DELIVERIES ARE ACTUALLY PART OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE, AND THEREBY EVADE THE PROVISIONS OF RULES 404 (b) AND 403, TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE?
2. CAN A DEFENDANT BE DENIED THE PROTECTIONS OF THE ACCOMPLICE WITNESS RULE UNDER ARTICLE 38.14 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MERELY BECAUSE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IS AVAILABLE TO THE ACCOMPLICE?
01-0499 HAMPTON, LEON, JR. 04/24/02
STATE'SECTORMURDER
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A JUVENILE'S VIDEOTAPED STATEMENT IS SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION BECAUSE THE JUVENILE'S PARENTS WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF THE CHARGE IN THE REASON FOR WHICH HE WAS BEING DETAINED PRIOR TO HIS MAKING OF THE STATEMENT.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A JUVENILE'S CONFESSION IS SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION BECAUSE OF A DELAY IN NOTIFYING HIS PARENTS OF A CHANGE IN THE REASON FOR WHICH HE WAS BEING DETAINED, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DELAY IN NOTIFICATION AND THE MAKING OF THE VIDEOTAPED STATEMENT.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS EMPLOYED AN IMPROPER STANDARD FOR REVIEW A POTENTIAL BRADY VIOLATION BY REPLACING THE THIRD PRONG OF THE BAGLEY TEST WITH THE HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD OF RULE 44.2(a).
01-0519 BEAL, DANIEL LOUIS 09/12/01
APPELLANT'SHARRISPOSSESSION W/INTENT TO DELIVER AMPHETAMINE
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THE DATE TO BE USED IN DETERMINING THE FINALITY OF A CONVICTION, FOR ENHANCEMENT PURPOSES, IS THE DATE THE JUDGMENT IS SIGNED AND NOT THE DATE OF THE APPELLATE COURT'S MANDATE.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF TRUE TO THE ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPH.
01-0542 CHAVEZ, RICHARD, JR. 09/12/01
STATE'SPOTTERAGGRAVATED ASSAULT
2. IF INDEED THE TRIAL COURT'S PROCEDURE WAS IMPROPER WAS THE ERROR IN PROCEEDING WITH ELEVEN JURORS "STRUCTURAL" ERROR DEFYING HARM ANALYSIS, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD?
01-0587 McCLINTON, JR., HAROLD 09/12/01
STATE'SHARRISPOSSESSION OF COCAINE
1. DOES A TRIAL COURT HAVE THE POWER TO REFORM A DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE AFTER THE DEFENDANT HAS ALREADY BEGUN TO SERVE THE SENTENCE?
01-0817 MENDEZ, JOHN BUSTAMONTE 09/12/01
APPELLANT'STAYLORMURDER
1. WHETHER THE ADOPTION OF RULE 33.1, TEX. R. APP. PROC., REQUIRING CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION TO PRESERVE ALL NON-STRUCTURAL APPELLATE ERROR HAS OVERRULED THIRTY YEARS OF COURT OPINIONS REQUIRING THE TRIAL COURT TO SUA SPONTE WITHDRAW A GUILTY PLEA BEFORE A JURY WHEN EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE IS ADDUCED BEFORE THAT JURY AND NOT WITHDRAWN.
01-0827 HUTCHINSON, CLYDE T., JR. 09/12/01
APPELLANT'SHARRISONBURGLARY OF BUILDING
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN ORDERING THE TRIAL COURT TO SUPPLEMENT THE TRIAL RECORD WITH WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THAT WERE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT?
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN ORDERING THE RECORD TO BE SUPPLEMENTED?
3. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY ALLOWING THE STATE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD WITH REGARD TO APPELLANT'S BATSON CHALLENGE, WHICH UNFAIRLY GAVE THE STATE TWO BITES AT THE APPLE?
01-0860 BURNETT, DEVIN LYNN 09/19/01
STATE'SDENTONDELIVERY OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, ENHANCED
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN REVERSING AND REMANDING THIS CAUSE FOR NEW TRIAL SINCE NOTHING IN THE RECORD SHOWS THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA.
01-0875 WELCH, PHOEBE 01/09/02
APPELLANT'SCASTROPOSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A THIRD PERSON'S CONSENT TO SEARCH A VEHICLE IS VALID WHERE THE OWNER HAS REFUSED TO CONSENT TO THE SEARCH.
01-1004 LOGAN, NANCY 11/14/01
STATE'STITUSINSURANCE FRAUD
1. PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE § 35.02 (INSURANCE FRAUD), IS THE OFFENSE LEVEL DETERMINED BY THE VALUE OF THE CLAIM, OR BY THE VALUE OF THE FRAUDULENT PORTION OF THE CLAIM?
2. WHERE THE STATE PRESENTS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WOULD ALLOW A RATIONAL JURY TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DEFENDANT'S ENTIRE INSURANCE CLAIM WAS FRAUDULENT (I.E., THAT THE DEFENDANT, WITH THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD OR DECEIVE, MADE A STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AN INSURANCE CLAIM THAT CONTAINED FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION AS TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED OR DESTROYED IN THE MANNER AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN THE STATEMENT, AND THUS AFFECTED THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO PAYMENT OF THE ENTIRE CLAIM), IN ORDER TO PROVE THE VALUE OF THE CLAIM MUST THE STATE PROVE THE VALUE OF EACH SPECIFIC ITEM OF PROPERTY STATED IN THE CLAIM, AND FURTHER SHOW THAT EACH OF THOSE SPECIFIC ITEMS OF PROPERTY WAS NOT ACTUALLY DAMAGED OR LOST?
01-1079 BEEMAN, JR., KNOWEL 10/03/01
APPELLANT'SMIDLANDFELONY DWI
1. CAN A SEARCH WARRANT TO DRAW BLOOD BE USED TO AVOID THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 724.012(b) AND 724.13 OF THE TRANSPORTATION CODE?
01-1164 RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS 10/10/01
APPELLANT'SWICHITAFAILURE TO REGISTER AS SEX OFFENDER
1. DO THE 1997 AMENDMENTS TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION LAW VIOLATE THE "EX POST FACTO" CLAUSE OF THE U.S. AND TEXAS CONSTITUTIONS BY REQUIRING PERSONS CONVICTED PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT'S EFFECTIVE DATE TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER FOR LIFE?
01-1168 ZULIANI, GERALD CHRISTOPHER 10/10/01
APPELLANT'STRAVISASSAULT W/BODILY WEAPON
1. IN RESOLVING PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL IS FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE DID NOT ACT IN SELF-DEFENSE, THE COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED INCORRECT STANDARDS OF REVIEW.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL, UNDER THE EXCITED UTTERANCE' EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, JUDY TOBEY'S TESTIMONY ABOUT PATTI DWINELL'S STATEMENTS TO HER ON FEBRUARY 3, 1999.
01-1220 BAILEY, BRENDA SUE 10/31/01
STATE'SHARRISENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
01-1221 BABIN, JOHN 10/31/01
STATE'SHARRISENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
01-1222 SCHNUR, JAMES 10/31/01
STATE'SHARRISENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
01-1223 SCHNUR, RALPH 10/31/01
STATE'SHARRISENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
01-1224 COLEMAN, CHARLES 10/31/01
STATE'SHARRISENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
01-1225 BABIN, JOHN ALLEN 10/31/01
STATE'SHARRISENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
01-1226 COLEMAN, CHARLES FRANCIS 10/31/01
STATE'SHARRISENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
01-1227 SCHNUR, RALPH 10/31/01
STATE'SHARRISENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
01-1228 SCHNUR, JAMES ARNOLD 10/31/01
STATE'SHARRISENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
01-1229 BAILEY, BRENDA SUE 10/31/01
STATE'SHARRISENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
1. DO FEDERAL DOUBLE JEOPARDY PRINCIPLES BAR A SECOND TRIAL FOR THE SAME OFFENSE AFTER THE PETITIONERS WERE ACQUITTED IF THE STATE CHANGES ITS THEORY AS TO WHO OWNED THE PROPERTY ALLEGEDLY STOLEN?
2. IS SMOTHERMAN V. STATE, 415 S.W.2d 430 (TEX. CRIM. APP. 1967) STILL GOOD LAW UNDER FEDERAL DOUBLE JEOPARDY PRINCIPLES?
01-1263 MIDDLETON, DAVID WAYNE 10/24/01
APPELLANT'SWISEPOSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
1. SHOULD A TRIAL COURT PROVIDE THE JURY WITH A DEFINITION OF THE TERM "PROBABLE CAUSE" IN AN ART. 38.23 INSTRUCTION?
01-1328 SIMS, SCOTT EVERETT 12/05/01
APPELLANT'SHARRISD.W.I.
1. WHETHER COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY PERFORMED THE FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW OF THIS EVIDENCE?
01-1385 HILL, SAMUEL B. 11/28/01
STATE'STARRANTCAPITAL MURDER
1. SHOULD THE COURT OF APPEALS HAVE ABATED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, RATHER THAN ACQUITTING APPELLANT OF CAPITAL MURDER, WHERE THE RECORD SHOWED THAT THE TRIAL COURT AND THE PARTIES DISCUSSED OPTIONS TO A MISTRIAL IN AN UNRECORDED CONFERENCE BUT FAILED TO STATE THEIR CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE RECORD?
2. WHERE THERE WAS UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE THAT, AT AN UNRECORDED CONFERENCE BEFORE A MISTRIAL WAS DECLARED, APPELLANT OBJECTED TO PROCEEDING WITH ELEVEN JURORS, AND WHERE HE TOOK A FLATLY CONTRADICTORY POSITION ON APPEAL BY CLAIMING THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT OPTION SO THAT HE HAD BEEN PLACED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY, SHOULD THE COURT OF APPEALS HAVE ABATED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING RATHER THAN ACQUITTING HIM OF CAPITAL MURDER?
3. WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS' AUTHORITY TO ABATE FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO CLARIFY THE TRIAL COURT'S REASONING LIMITED TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE COURT WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW?
4. BY HOLDING THERE COULD BE NO MANIFEST NECESSITY FOR A MISTRIAL BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT STATE FOR THE RECORD THE OTHER OPTIONS IT CONSIDERED, DID THE COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRE FINDINGS AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ERR BY REFUSING TO ABATE THE APPEAL FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO MAKE THOSE FINDINGS?
5. WHERE THE RECORD SHOWED THAT THE PARTIES HAD AN UNRECORDED CONFERENCE WITH THE TRIAL COURT REGARDING THE NECESSITY FOR A MISTRIAL, COULD APPELLANT MEET HIS BURDEN TO SHOW THAT THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER LESS DRASTIC ALTERNATIVES AND THAT HE HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
6. DID APPELLANT MEET HIS BURDEN TO SHOW THAT PROCEEDING WITH ELEVEN JURORS WAS AN AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE MISTRIAL WHERE THE RECORD WAS SILENT REGARDING THAT ALTERNATIVE AND DID NOT REFLECT WHETHER THE PARTIES WOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO THAT PROCEDURE?
01-1410 REED, ANTHONY JAMES 12/19/01
APPELLANT'SDALLASAGGRAVATED ASSAULT
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY BROADENED THE INDICTMENT WHEN IT INCLUDED RECKLESSLY IN THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND THE INDICTMENT ONLY ALLEGED KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY.
01-1412 ROGERS, BOBBY RAY 12/05/01
STATE'SDALLASMURDER
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN HOLDING THAT A REQUEST FOR AN ACCIDENT INSTRUCTION IS EQUIVALENT TO A REQUEST FOR A VOLUNTARY CONDUCT INSTRUCTION?
2. WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS INCORRECT IN APPLYING THE ALMANZA "SOME HARM" STANDARD OF REVIEW WHERE THE JURY INSTRUCTION REQUESTED AT TRIAL VARIED FROM THE JURY INSTRUCTION THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD WAS ERRONEOUSLY OMITTED FROM THE JURY CHARGE?
01-1437 HAILEY, BOBBY 01/09/02
STATE'SNAVARROFELONY DWI
1. IS IT PROPER FOR AN APPELLATE COURT TO REVERSE A TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT ON A NOVEL THEORY OF LAW NEVER PRESENTED TO THE TRIAL COURT OR RAISED ON APPEAL, WHERE THAT NEW THEORY DOES NOT IMPLICATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, AND WHERE THE APPELLATE COURT NEVER GAVE THE PARTIES NOTICE OR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THAT THEORY.
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFORD PROPER DEFERENCE TO THE TRIAL COURT'S FACTUAL FINDINGS.
3. DOES A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE COMMIT THE CRIME OF ASSAULT PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SEC. 22.01 BY DRAWING BLOOD FROM A PATIENT FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES?
4. DOES ART. 38.23, C.C.P. REQUIRE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE, WHO, WITHOUT A REQUEST BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, DREW A SAMPLE OF THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES?
01-1464 RAMIREZ, LETICIA MARIACA 10/31/01
STATE'SSMITHTHEFT
1. AFTER THE 1985 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ART. V, § 12, DOES THE AMENDMENT OR CHANGE OF A COMPLAINT THAT UNDERLIES AN INFORMATION OPERATE TO VITIATE THE COMPLAINT AND DIVEST THE TRIAL COURT OF JURISDICTION?
2. DOES A DEFECT IN A COMPLAINT THAT UNDERLIES AN INFORMATION CONSTITUTE A DEFECT IN THE INFORMATION THAT IS WAIVED IF NOT RAISED PRIOR TO TRIAL?
01-1609 ELLISON, BOBBY JOE 12/19/01
STATE'SGREGGAGG ROBBERY
1. THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AT THE PUNISHMENT PHASE THAT EXTRANEOUS OFFENSES MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY APPELLANT. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN EVALUATING HARM, BY LOOKING AT THE EFFECT OF THE EXTRANEOUS OFFENSE EVIDENCE, INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT THE EFFECT OF OMITTING THE INSTRUCTION?
01-1670 ARROYO, TONY 06/19/02
APPELLANT'SBEXARASSAULT
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS CREATE AN IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH AN OUT-OF-COURT WITNESS WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO OFFER ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY THE COMPLAINANT AS THE PERSON CONVICTED IN THE JUDGMENTS HE SOUGHT TO HAVE INTRODUCED?
01-1699 STURGEON, RICHARD GLEN 01/30/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. WHAT MUST DEFENSE COUNSEL DO TO PRESERVE ERROR WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DENIES HIS REQUEST FOR A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT FOR A SUBPOENAED WITNESS UNDER ART. 42.12, V.A.C.C.P.; MAY HE “SHOW WHAT THE WITNESS WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED TO” BY ASSERTING THE ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY IN OPEN COURT AS ONE COURT OF APPEALS SAYS HE MAY, OR MUST HE OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THAT ASSERTION, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD IN APPELLANT’S CASE?
01-1718 ROY, RAYMOND JOSEPH 03/06/02
APPELLANT'SCAMERONPOSSESSION OF COCAINE
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY HOLDING THAT NO DETENTION OCCURRED WHEN APPELLANT WAS NOT STOPPED?
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY HOLDING THAT THE SUBSEQUENT SEARCH `FOR WEAPONS' WAS REASONABLE?
01-1733 DRAGOO, RANDY LEE 03/06/02
STATE'STARRANTPOSSESSION OF FIREARM BY FELON
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION EXHIBITS A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF SPEEDY TRIAL JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT HOLDS THAT AN ALLEGED `ASSURANCE' BY THE STATE WILL EXCUSE APPELLANT'S 3 ½ YEAR DELAY IN ASSERTING HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHT.
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION FUNDAMENTALLY MISINTERPRET FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY TRIAL JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT HELD THAT A RECORD SILENT ON THE REASONS FRO THE DELAY WEIGHS `HEAVILY' AGAINST THE STATE?
3. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY CONCLUDING THAT THE MERE PASSAGE OF TIME (3 ½ YEARS) SATISFIES APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SHOW HE WAS PREJUDICED?
4. ASSUMING THAT THE MERE PASSAGE OF 3 ½ YEARS CREATES A PRESUMPTION OF PREJUDICE, DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN I FAILED TO FIND THAT SUCH A PRESUMPTION WAS REBUTTED BY (a) THE ABSENCE OF ANY LEGITIMATE DEFENSE TO APPELLANT'S CRIME, AND (b) APPELLANT'S PRE-EXISTING IMPRISONMENT FOR MURDER?
5. DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS ASSERTION THAT APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING IMPEACHED BY A FORMER CONVICTION TRANSFORM ILLUSORY PREJUDICE INTO REAL PREJUDICE?
6. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN IT RELIED UPON A TRIAL COURT CONCLUSION WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ANY EVIDENCE AND WAS MADE LONG AFTER THE TRIAL COURT HAD REJECTED APPELLANT'S SPEEDY TRIAL CLAIM?
7. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS MISCONSTRUE THE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE WHEN IT DECIDED THAT IT LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO ABATE, AND IN REFUSING TO ABATE THIS CASE?
01-1742 LOPEZ, RUDOLPHO 02/06/02
STATE'SBEXARAGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT, ASSAULT OF CHILD, & INDECENCY/CHILD
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO IMPEACH THE COMPLAINING WITNESS ON A COLLATERAL MATTER FIRST RAISED DURING APPELLANT’S CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESS.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED FALSE ACCUSATION BY THE COMPLAINING WITNESS OF PHYSICAL ABUSE OF HIS MOTHER TWO YEARS BEFORE, WAS RELEVANT TO THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S MOTIVE TO TESTIFY AGAINST APPELLANT FOR SEXUALLY ASSAULTING THE COMPLAINING WITNESS.
01-1743 HIGHFILL, MICHAEL 01/30/02
APPELLANT'STRAVISCAPITAL MURDER
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT UPHELD APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR CAPITAL MURDER UNDER A PARTIES CONSPIRACY THEORY BECAUSE APPELLANT’S CO-DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF CAPITAL MURDER.
01-1748/9 BROWDER, BRUCE 09/11/02
STATE'STARRANTSEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD
1. THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT APPLIED A DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW AND REJECTED THE TRIAL COURT’S FACT FINDINGS EVEN THOUGH THE FINDINGS WERE PREMISED ON MATTERS DESERVING DEFERENCE WHICH WERE SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.
2. THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE STATE’S REVOCATION PETITION FOR A LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE STATE IN EXECUTING THE ARREST WARRANTS.
01-1756 LEHRMAN, RICHARD GLENN 12/19/01
APPELLANT'STARRANTFELONY DWI
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT APPELLANT HAD TWO PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR DWI.
01-1784 GRAY, DEMARKUS JOSEPH 01/09/02
APPELLANT'SGREGGAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. IS IT NECESSARY TO CHALLENGE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO CHALLENGE A DEADLY WEAPON FINDING IN THE JUDGMENT.
01-1794 DYAR, BRADLEY ROBERT 12/05/01
APPELLANT'SBASTROPD.W.I
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLANT'S WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE 14.03 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; IS A HOSPITAL REALLY A SUSPICIOUS PLACE?
01-1887 BISHOP, MARTHA LYNN 01/16/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISPOSS. OF COCAINE W/I TO DELIVER
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT HER DETENTION WAS CONDUCTED WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT.
01-1932 TURNER, MARCUS 02/06/02
STATE'STARRANTCAPITAL MURDER
2. DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION USURP THE ROLE OF THE TRIAL COURT BY INSISTING THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS REQUIRED TO BELIEVE APPELLANT (AND POSSIBLY HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL) ON THE HISTORICAL FACT ISSUE OF WHETHER THE ACCEPTANCE DEADLINE HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED TO APPELLANT?
3. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION RELIEVE APPELLANT OF HIS OBLIGATION TO SHOW PREJUDICE– (A) BY TRAMPLING THE TRIAL COURT’S PREROGATIVE TO MAKE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS BASED ON WITNESS DEMEANOR, AND (B) BY IGNORING APPELLANT’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT HE WOULD HAVE TIMELY ACCEPTED THE 35- YEAR PLEA OFFER HAD THE JULY ACCEPTANCE DEADLINE BEEN COMMUNICATED TO HIM?
01-1936 ALZARKA, LOUBABA 01/09/02
APPELLANT'SWASHINGTONPOSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
1. WAS THE APPELLANT'S WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL INVOLUNTARY, WHERE THE TRIAL COURT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED THE APPELLANT PERMISSION TO APPEAL AND ALL OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED AGREED THAT THE APPELLANT COULD APPEAL?
01-1938 MENDOZA, PIOQUINTO III 02/13/02
APPELLANT'SWEBBMURDER
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO GRANT APPELLANT’S REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING VOLUNTARILY WAIVING HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL BEFORE MAKING HIS CONFESSION AND WHETHER HE HAD BEEN TOLD HIS CONFESSION COULD BE USED FOR HIM, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THESE ISSUES WERE CONTROVERTED AT TRIAL.
01-2012/6 CASTENEDA, OCTOVIO 02/06/02
APPELLANT'SHIDALGOFORFEITED BOND
1. WHETHER A BAIL BOND SURETY IS LIABLE ON A BAIL BOND FORFEITURE WHEN ITS PRINCIPAL IS DEPORTED PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THE PRINCIPAL WAS REQUIRED TO APPEAR IN A TEXAS COURT.
2. WHETHER A BAIL BOND SURETY IS LIABLE AFTER EXECUTING A BAIL BOND IN WHICH THE SHERIFF NEVER RELEASES THE PRINCIPAL ON THE BAIL BOND BUT RATHER TRANSFERS THE PRINCIPAL TO THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.
3. WHETHER A BAIL BOND FORFEITURE FINAL JUDGMENT IN WHICH THERE IS NO REMITTITUR CAN BEAR ANY INTEREST.
01-2031 SHANKLE, BRUCE WAYNE 02/13/02
STATE'SBELLAGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. DOES AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE AND DEFENDANT, FOR THE STATE TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER PENDING CHARGE IN ASSESSING PUNISHMENT UNDER SECTION 12.45 V.A.P.C., BRING THE PLEA AGREEMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF AN AGREED PUNISHMENT RECOMMENDATION IN RULE 25.2(b)(3) TEX.R.APP.PRO.?
2. WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECT IN CONCLUDING THAT A FAILURE TO ADMONISH APPELLANT ABOUT SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS AFFECTED A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RECORD EVIDENCE ABOUT WHAT THE APPELLANT KNEW OR DID NOT KNOW ABOUT SUCH REQUIREMENTS?
01-2053 HERNANDEZ, ARTURO CHAVEZ 03/20/02
STATE'SKLEBERGPOSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
1. MUST A PARTY SEEKING TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE ALWAYS PRESENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE TEST OF KELLY V. STATE, 824 S.W.2d 568 (1992), REGARDLESS OF THE PARTICULAR SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE?
2. IF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OR A COURT OF APPEALS HAS DETERMINED THE VALIDITY OF A PARTICULAR SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE AND A TECHNIQUE APPLYING THAT PRINCIPLE, MUST A PARTY SUBSEQUENTLY SEEKING TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE BASED UPON THAT SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE NEVERTHELESS SATISFY THE FIRST TWO PRONGS OF THE TEST OF KELLY V. STATE, 824 S.W.2d 568 (1992)?
3. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF THE RESULTS OF A URINALYSIS TEST OF THE APPELLANT’S URINE SAMPLE?
01-2066/7 ALDRICH, DANA MICHELLE 02/13/02
APPELLANT'SDALLASIMPERSONATING A PUBLIC SERVANT
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT SUSTAINING EITHER: (A) THAT BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY WITHOUT CONDUCTING A “MOON REVIEW,” THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, OR (B) THAT IF APPELLANT’S TRIAL ATTORNEY WAIVED SUCH BY NOT REQUESTING SAME, THEN APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION BELOW THE STRICKLAND AND HERNANDEZ LEVEL.
01-2082/5 GREGORY, GLENN GORDON 03/20/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISINDECENCY W/A CHILD
1. A NURSE EMPLOYED BY A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, “CHILD ABUSE AND BEYOND” PERFORMED A SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION ON THE VICTIM PURSUANT TO A “LAW ENFORCEMENT REFERRAL.” WERE STATEMENTS THE VICTIM MADE TO THE NURSE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS - AND TREATMENT - EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE? TRE 803(4).
01-2093 MOSES, SHANNON EUGENE 01/09/02
STATE'SHARRISBRIBERY
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AN EXTRANEOUS OFFENSE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO REBUT A DEFENSIVE THEORY THAT POLICE OFFICERS FABRICATED THE EXISTENCE OF THE OFFENSE IN ORDER TO RETALIATE AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR HIS ROLE IN A CONTROVERSY INVOLVING OTHER POLICE OFFICERS.
01-2099 KELLAR, RANDALL NORMAN 04/24/02
APPELLANT'SDALLASTHEFT
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO QUASH, WHICH SOUGHT NOTICE OF THE SPECIFIC ACTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL THEFTS IN A CASE IN WHICH THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED THEFT IN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT.
01-2115 WATTS, JOHN 03/06/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISWATER POLLUTION
2. THE TRIAL COURT AND APPELLATE COURT MISREAD AMERICAN PLANT FOOD CORP. V. STATE, 587 S.W. 2D 679 (TEX.CRIM.APP. 1979) TO HOLD THAT ‘A DITCH' IS WATER IN THE STATE WHEN, IN FACT, THE SPECIFIC HOLDING OF AMERICAN PLANT FOOD CORP VS. STATE, SUPRA. WAS, ‘THIS DRAINAGE DITCH WATER' WAS SURFACE WATER.' THIS BEING SO, THE ORAL INSTRUCTION MISSTATED THE LAW TO THE JURY.
3. EVEN ASSUMING FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE THAT A DRAINAGE DITCH IS WATER IN THE STATE, THE APPELLATE COURT IGNORES PRIOR CASE LAW WHEN IT SUMMARILY CONCLUDES THAT SINCE THE ORAL INSTRUCTION WAS A CORRECT STATEMENT OF LAW, IT, THEREFORE, WAS NOT A COMMENT ON THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
01-2116 MANZI, JONATHAN 02/6/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISPOSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
1. WHETHER A COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD REVIEW AFFIDAVITS DE NOVO ON THE APPEAL OF A MOTION TO SUPPRESS DECIDED ENTIRELY BY AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE.
01-2127 PEREZ, DAVID FRANCISCO 02/20/02
STATE'STAYLORPOSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A POLICE OFFICER MUST HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION BEFORE HE CAN CONTACT A PERSON IN PUBLIC OR KNOCK ON THE DOOR OF A PERSON’S RESIDENCE.
01-2156 FREEMAN, CONSUELO 03/27/02
STATE'SNUECESRETALIATION
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN IT EFFECTIVELY HELD THAT THE FAILURE TO SEEK RECUSAL OF THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS PER SE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
01-2180 SALAZAR, PEDRO 05/22/02
APPELLANT'SDALLASMURDER
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING A VIDEO CONTAINING NUMEROUS PICTURES OF THE VICTIM WITH HIS FAMILY AND OTHERS ACCOMPANIED BY EMOTIONAL MUSIC, WAS PROPERLY ADMISSIBLE AS VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO APPLY THE PROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW IN ADDRESSING WHETHER THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF A VIDEO CONTAINING NUMEROUS PICTURES OF THE VICTIM WITH HIS FAMILY AND OTHERS ACCOMPANIED BY EMOTIONAL MUSIC WAS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT.
01-2181 STEVENSON-GRAY, JACQUELINE 04/24/02
APPELLANT'SBRAZOSTHEFT
1. PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE SECTION 25.2(b)(3), DOES A RESTITUTION AWARD THAT WAS NOT PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENT AND THAT WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE DEFENDANT AT TRIAL SO THAT SHE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT, CONSTITUTE PUNISHMENT THAT EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PROSECUTOR AND AGREED TO BY THE DEFENDANT SO AS TO ALLOW HER TO APPEAL FROM HER PLEA OF GUILTY?
2. UNDER TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 21.2, IS A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL REQUIRED AS A PREREQUISITE TO PRESENTING ERROR ON APPEAL WHEN THE FACTS BEING APPEALED FROM ARE CONTAINED IN THE COMBINED REPORTER’S RECORD AND CLERK’S RECORD?
01-2189 BAILEY, HAROLD WAYNE 03/27/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISFTSRA
1. WHEN MUST A DEFENDANT FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM A CONDITION OF PROBATION IMPOSED AFTER THE TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL HAS EXPIRED?
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY DISMISSING APPELLANT’S APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE JUDGMENT WHEN THE RESTITUTION ORDER APPELLANT SOUGHT TO APPEAL WAS NOT SIGNED UNTIL THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE JUDGMENT?
01-2243 MISCHKE, JOHN THOMAS 04/24/02
APPELLANT'SBRAZOSINDECENCY WITH A CHILD
1. WHETHER APPELLANT’S OPEN PLEA OF GUILTY WAS NOT FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY GIVEN UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AND ARTICLE I, §§ 10 AND 19 OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, AS THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION IS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF THE PLEA.
01-2289 MONREAL JR., ALFREDO 03/13/02
APPELLANT'STARRANTAGGRAVATED ROBBERY
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN HOLDING THAT MONREAL HAD WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT APPEAL HIS CONVICTION WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE TRIAL COURT.
01-2330 OSBOURN, VICKI C. 05/08/02
APPELLANT'S AUSTIN POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD ARTICLE 39.14(b) OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DID NOT REQUIRE EXCLUSION OF THE STATE’S EXPERT TESTIMONY.
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT A POLICE OFFICER’S IDENTIFICATION OF MARIHUANA WAS ADMISSIBLE AS A LAY OPINION UNDER TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 701.
01-2355 REX, MARY ELAINE 05/08/02
STATE'S GILLESPIE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA
1. DOES ART. 38.23 PROHIBIT THE USE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF LAW, WHERE THAT INFORMATION IS NOT ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED AT TRIAL?
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN HOLDING THAT ART. 3823 REQUIRES SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN THE COURSE OF A PRIVATE PARTY’S VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL TRESPASS STATUTE?
3. WAS THE SEARCH OF THE RESIDENCE AND SEIZURE OF MARIJUANA LAWFUL PURSUANT TO THE GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION OF ART. 38.23(b)?
01-2360 TREVINO, TOMMY 03/27/02
STATE'STARRANTMURDER
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN DECIDING THAT APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SUDDEN PASSION INSTRUCTION WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE STATE’S ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT’S REACTION WAS NOT ONE THAT SOCIETY WOULD BE WILLING TO RECOGNIZE AS NORMAL OR JUSTIFIED, IN VIOLATION OF THE RELEVANT LANGUAGE FROM THE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE REQUIRING APPELLATE COURTS TO ADDRESS EVERY ISSUE RAISED AND NECESSARY TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE APPEAL?
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY APPLYING ONLY SELECTIVE PORTIONS OF THE APPLICABLE HARM ANALYSIS UPON WHICH THE STATE HAD RELIED AND, THEREBY, VIOLATE NOT ONLY THE DICTATES OF THE BINDING PRECEDENT FROM THIS COURT, BUT ALSO THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE REQUIRING THAT ISSUED OPINIONS ADDRESS EVERY ISSUE RAISED AND NECESSARY TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE APPEAL?
3. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN FINDING ERROR IN THE TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL OF APPELLANT’S REQUESTED INSTRUCTION ON SUDDEN PASSION ON APPELLANT’S PART, SUCH THAT THE JURY COULD HAVE REACHED SUCH A CONCLUSION ONLY THROUGH SHEER IRRATIONALITY OR PURE SPECULATION, EITHER OF WHICH WOULD VIOLATE THIS COURT’S BINDING PRECEDENTS?
01-2365 WOODS, OTIS DON 04/10/02
STATE'SHARRISATTEMPTED SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDE IT HAD JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF APPELLANT’S APPEAL WHEN APPELLANT WAIVED HIS APPEAL AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN WITH THE STATE?
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDE IT HAD JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF APPELLANT’S APPEAL WHEN APPELLANT’S NOTICES OF APPEAL FROM HIS PLEA-BARGAINED CONVICTION WERE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(b)(3)?
3. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDE IT HAD JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE VOLUNTARINESS OF APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY ENTERED IN CONNECTION WITH A PLEA BARGAIN?
4. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY FIND APPELLANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL TO APPELLANT FOR FAILING TO REQUEST APPOINTMENT OF A MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT TO ASSIST THE DEFENSE PURSUANT TO AKE V. OKLAHOMA, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMPETENT EVIDENCE IN THE APPELLATE RECORD SHOWING EITHER DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE ON THE PART OF COUNSEL IN THIS REGARD OR PREJUDICE TO APPELLANT?
01-2377 PEEK, ROSANNA 09/11/02
APPELLANT'SDALLASRECKLESS INJURY TO A CHILD
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO REOPEN AND OFFER CERTAIN MEDICAL RECORDS.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT AN UNREASONABLE DELAY WOULD OCCUR IF THE DEFENSE WAS ALLOWED TO REOPEN.
01-2378 PEEK, ROBERT 09/11/02
APPELLANT'SDALLASRECKLESS INJURY TO A CHILD
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO REOPEN AND OFFER CERTAIN MEDICAL RECORDS.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT AN UNREASONABLE DELAY WOULD OCCUR IF THE DEFENSE WAS ALLOWED TO REOPEN.
01-2444 MIZELL, CHARLES W., JR. 06/12/02
APPELLANT'SBEXARVIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS; OFF. OPPR.
1. WHETHER THE STATE’S APPEAL CONTENDING APPELLANT’S SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL IS AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO ART 44.01 (b), OR WHETHER, BECAUSE THE STATE MAKES ITS APPEAL IN A CASE WHERE APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED AND OPTED TO APPEAL HIS CONVICTION, CONSTITUTES AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO ART. 44.01 (c).
2. WHETHER TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 44.01 REQUIRES THE STATE TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITHIN THE 15 DAY REQUISITE PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THE STATE WISHES TO APPEAL THE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS ILLEGAL?
01-2475 BROWN, HENRY 04/10/02
APPELLANT'SSMITHAGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THE EVIDENCE TO BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE JURY’S FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT VOLUNTARILY RELEASE THE VICTIM.
01-2476/7 COLBERT, DERORY DEWAYNE 04/10/02
STATE'SDALLASMURDER; AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT, FOR JURY TRIALS HELD PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THIS COURT’S OPINION IN PAULSON, IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO HAVE INCLUDED A GEESA INSTRUCTION IN THE JURY CHARGE.
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RETROACTIVELY APPLYING PAULSON WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN ANALYSIS UNDER STOVALL V. DENNO.
3. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING A CRIMINAL CONVICTION WITHOUT CONDUCTING A HARM ANALYSIS.
02-0066 WHITLOCK, TARRANCE DARON 05/29/02
APPELLANT'SDALLASAGGRAVATED ASSAULT
1. WAS THE COURT CORRECT IN REFORMING THE JUDGMENT TO INCLUDE A DEADLY WEAPON FINDING, ALTHOUGH THE TRIAL JUDGE, AFTER A BENCH TRIAL, DECLINED TO ENTER AN AFFIRMATIVE FINDING BUT INSTEAD ENTERED A “NO FINDING” IN THE WRITTEN JUDGMENT?
02-0070 ARMENDARIZ, JOSE FRANCO 06/19/02
STATE'SECTORPOSSESSION OF COCAINE
1. DO POLICE OFFICERS EMPLOYED BY A "HOME-RULE" MUNICIPALITY HAVE COUNTY-WIDE JURISDICTION?
2. CAN CITY POLICE OFFICERS WITHOUT JURISDICTION LEGALLY STOP A SUSPECT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RELAYED TO THEM BY A DEPUTY SHERIFF WITH JURISDICTION?
02-0100 SOLIZ, DAVID S. 05/15/02
STATE'SFORT BENDPERJURY
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS IMPROPERLY READ INTO THE PERJURY VENUE STATUTE A REQUIREMENT THAT THE STATE MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAS SWORN FALSELY IN A HARRIS COUNTY DEPOSITION HAS ALSO RE-OFFERED THIS FALSE STATEMENT AS THE TRUTH IN FORT BEND COUNTY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH VENUE IN FORT BEND COUNTY?
2. DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS' INTERPRETATION OF THE PERJURY VENUE STATUTE REQUIRING AN "ACT" OF PERJURY IN FORT BEND COUNTY IGNORE EXPRESS LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 13.03 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND RENDER THE STATUTORY PHRASE "ATTEMPTED TO USE" A NULLITY THEREBY FRUSTRATING THE CLEAR LEGISLATIVE INTENT EMBODIED IN THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS DEALING WITH PERJURY?
3. IS VENUE PROPER FOR MISDEMEANOR PERJURY IN A COUNTY WHERE A FALSE STATEMENT IS USED FOR PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT?
4. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN DENYING VENUE FOR MISDEMEANOR PERJURY IN FORT BEND COUNTY EVEN THOUGH THE COURT EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A FALSE STATEMENT WAS USED IN FORT BEND COUNTY?
02-0185 MARTINEZ, CHRISTINA 06/12/02
STATE'SSMITHCAPITAL MURDER
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY RULING THAT AN OBJECTION TO ONE PHOTOGRAPH PRESERVED APPELLATE REVIEW FOR ALL TESTIMONY AND ALL OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS RELATED TO GANG ACTIVITY, BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT ON NOTICE OF THE EXTENT OF THE OBJECTION CONTEMPLATED ON APPEAL.
02-0201 PETERSON, JAMES MICHAEL 04/10/02
STATE'SCOLLINPOSSESSION & DELIVERY OF COCAINE
3. GIVEN THE IDENTIFICATION OF SUBSTANTIAL DEFECTS IN THE COURT’S DECISION, SHOULD THE COURT RE-EXAMINE AND ABANDON BAUDER V. STATE, 921 S.W.2d 696 (TEX. CRIM. APP.1996), AND ITS PROGENY?
4. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY ANALYZE THIS CASE UNDER BAUDER AND ITS PROGENY WHERE IT OVERLOOKED THE STATE’S CONTENTIONS BASED ON THE RECORD?
02-0254 DOE, JOHN 06/05/02
STATE'SDALLASNON-DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL AD
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN APPLYING THE MOST HARSH FORM OF STRICT SCRUTINY REVIEW TO A STATUTE PROHIBITING TWO OR MORE PEOPLE FROM AGREEING TO PUBLISH ANONYMOUS POLITICAL ADVERTISING?
2. IF STRICT SCRUTINY IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF REVIEW TO DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF TEX. ELEC. CODE § 255.001, DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT THE STATUTE WAS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER SUCH A REVIEW?
02-0344 MARTINEZ, CERJIO 06/26/02
STATE'SEL PASOAGGRAVATED PERJURY
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY REFUSING TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE STATE THAT WAS NECESSARY TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE APPEAL?
2. DOES A PARTY WAIVE CONSIDERATION ON APPEAL OF ITS CONTENTION THAT A LEGAL THEORY IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE CASE BY ITS FAILURE TO PRESENT TO THE TRIAL COURT ITS CONTENTION THAT THE THEORY IS INAPPLICABLE?
3. SHOULD AN ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENT, GIVEN BY AN INDIVIDUAL AS A RESULT OF A VIOLATION OF V.A.C.C.P. ART. 20.17, BE SUPPRESSED IN A PERJURY PROSECUTION ARISING FROM THE FALSE STATEMENT?
02-0358 GUTIERREZ, ELOY JAMES 06/19/02
STATE'SNUECESATTEMPTED SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR TO HOLD THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA OF TRUE IN A REVOCATION PROCEEDING AFTER THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROSECUTOR'S AGREED RECOMMENDATION ON PUNISHMENT?
2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY DID NOT SEEK TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF TRUE AFTER THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROSECUTOR'S AGREED RECOMMENDATION ON PUNISHMENT?
02-0400 FAISST, LINDSAY M. 07/31/02
APPELLANT'SSMITHINTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER
1. MAY AN ORDER CERTIFYING A JUVENILE TO STAND TRIAL AS AN ADULT BE APPEALED FOLLOWING AN OPEN PLEA OF GUILTY. SEE YOUNG V. STATE, 8 S.W.3D 656 (2000).
02-0421 CATES, JOHNNY WELDON II 09/11/02
APPELLANT'SHARRISFAILURE TO STOP AND RENDER AID
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE DEADLY WEAPON FINDING.
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION MATERIALLY MISSTATES THE FACTS AND REASONABLE, RATIONAL INFERENCES AND IN SO DOING, ERRONEOUSLY FINDS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE DEADLY WEAPON FINDING.
02-0435 ALONZO, ALEXANDER 07/31/02
STATE'SHARRISCAPITAL MURDER
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS REQUIRED TO DISREGARD THE TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE AND ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE PURPORTED CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE TRIAL COURT AND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE THE TRIAL COURT TO ADMIT THE EVIDENCE.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROFFERED TESTIMONY OF MS. GRAHAM WAS NOT HEARSAY, AND THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS REQUIRED TO FIND THAT MS. GRAHAM’S TESTIMONY WAS RELIABLE.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS REQUIRED TO ADMIT THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MILLER AND MR. O’SHIELDS, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT AVAILABLE AS WITNESSES, THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, AND THEIR TESTIMONY WAS NOT RELIABLE.
02-0462 RICKELS, TERRY N. 09/11/02
STATE'SBEEINDECENCY WITH A CHILD BY TOUCHING & EXPOSURE
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A CONDITION OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROHIBITED APPELLANT FROM GOING “WITHIN THREE HUNDRED (300) FEET OF ANY PREMISES WHERE CHILDREN 17 YEARS OR YOUNGER CONGREGATE OR GATHER” WAS TOO VAGUE TO BE ENFORCED, BECAUSE THE CONDITION DID NOT SPECIFY HOW THE CHILD SAFETY ZONE WAS TO BE MEASURED.
02-0539 ZUNIGA, JOSE 09/11/02
STATE'SLYNNMANSLAUGHTER
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS REVIEW OF THE FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE INSTANT CASE CONFLICTS WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS RELIANCE UPON INCONSISTENCY IN THE JURY’S VERDICT TO SUPPORT ITS HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENCY CONFLICTS WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
02-0612 SAUCEDA, KEVIN 08/21/02
APPELLANT'S HARRIS AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY RULING THAT SIMPLY ASKING A QUESTION FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES RENDERED AN ENTIRE VIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW OF EXTRANEOUS OFFENSES ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE RULE OF OPTIONAL COMPLETENESS.
02-0739/41 RYLANDER, ROBERT 09/11/02
STATE'SBEXARAGGRAVATED ASSAULT (3)
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THT RYLANDER’S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT IGNORED THE TWO PRONG TEST OF STRICKLAND REQUIRING THAT THE CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVENESS BE AFFIRMATIVELY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RYLANDER’S COUNSEL’S PERFORMANCE WAS DEFICIENT BASED ON THE RECORD BEFORE IT BECAUSE THE RECORD WAS DEVOID OF ANY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THAT COUNSELS ALLEGED ERRORS WERE NOT BASED UPON SOUND TACTICAL DECISIONS.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO PROPERLY APPLY THE PREJUDICE PRONG OF STRICKLAND WHEN THEY FOUND THAT THE TOTALITY OF COUNSEL’S REPRESENTATION UNDERMINED THEIR CONFIDENCE IN THE CONVICTION IN THE ABSENCE OF A RECORD THAT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATES THAT, BUT FOR COUNSEL’S ERROR, THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDING WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.
02-0826 HERNANDEZ, ALEXANDER 08/21/02
STATE'S DALLAS POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE
1. DOES A PRIOR INDICTMENT CHARGE THE ‘SAME OFFENSE’ AND, THUS, TOLL THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD, IF BOTH THE PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT INDICTMENTS CHARGE THE SAME CONDUCT BUT DO NOT CHARGE OFFENSES UNDER THE SAME PENAL STATUTE?
2. DOES IMPORTING A ‘SAME PENAL STATUTE’ REQUIREMENT INTO THE TOLLING PROVISION OF ARTICLE 12.05(b) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE THWART THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS.
02-0839 LEBO, SEAN 09/11/02
APPELLANT'SBEXARASSAULT OF ELDERLY PERSON
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLODING THAT TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 44.04(b) DOES NOT PERMIT A DEFENDANT CONVICTED BY A JURY AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS PROBATION IS NOT ENTITLED TO BAIL PENDING APPEAL.
02-0904 YOUNG, CARROL DWAYNE 09/11/02
STATE'SHARRISAGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD
1. DID THE MAJORITY OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY HOLD THAT APPELLANT PRESERVED FOR APPELLATE REVIEW HIS CONTENTION THAT THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED HIS MOTION FOR MISTRIAL, WHERE APPELLANT MOVED FOR MISTRIAL WITHOUT FIRST OBJECTING TO OR REQUESTING AN INSTRUCTION TO DISREGARD REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE TRIAL COURT BY PROSPECTIVE JUROR VALDEZ TO THE EFFECT THAT, IN HER 25 - 30 YEARS OF WORK WITH CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED, SHE NEVER HAD A SITUATION IN WHICH A CHILD WAS FOUND NOT TO BE TELLING THE TRUTH?
2. DID THE MAJORITY OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDE THAT AN INSTRUCTION TO DISREGARD COULD NOT HAVE CURED ANY HARM OR PREJUDICE RESULTING FORM THE AFORESAID REMARKS MADE BY PROSPECTIVE JUROR VALDEZ AND THE TRIAL COURT’S ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS TO HER?
02-0936 ZORN, MARY 09/11/02
APPELLANT'SSMITHTERRORISTIC THREAT
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE OF TERRORISTIC THREAT IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF RETALIATION.