Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Appellant Ronald Lee, Jr. of continuous sexual abuse of a child, for which he was given a life sentence. Appellant claimed on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Eastland Court of Appeals held the evidence was sufficient and affirmed the trial court. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted Appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine if the court of appeals erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient. After that review, the Court concluded the lower court did err, and reformed the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The case was remanded for a new punishment hearing. View "Lee v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Cesar Gamino was convicted on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The Court of Appeals reversed Appellant’s conviction and remanded his case for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by refusing Appellant’s request for a jury charge on self defense. After review of the trial court record, the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed Appellant was entitled to a self defense charge. View "Gamino v. Texas" on Justia Law

Darren Lewis pled guilty to obtaining a controlled substance “through the use of a fraudulent prescription form” and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. However, Lewis’s lawyer never told him that, under the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion in Avery v. Texas, the prosecution would be unable to meet its burden to prove this offense as alleged. After review, the Court of Criminal Appeals held Lewis received ineffective assistance of counsel, and as a result, his plea was invalid. View "Ex parte Darren Lewis" on Justia Law

During a traffic stop, Appellee Reinaldo Sanchez was arrested for outstanding warrants. During that arrest, the officer searched Appellee’s person and discovered illegal drugs. The officer then searched Appellee’s Jeep and discovered more illegal drugs. The courts below held that the search of the Jeep was not a valid search incident to arrest because there was no reason to believe that the Jeep contained evidence relating to the outstanding warrants for which Appellee had been arrested. The court of appeals further held that the discovery of the illegal drugs on Appellee’s person could not supply a new basis for arrest, for the purpose of conducting a search incident to arrest, that would justify the search of the Jeep. The Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed and held that discovery of drugs on a suspect’s person, after an arrest on traffic warrants but before the search of the suspect’s vehicle, can supply a new basis for arrest that would justify search of the vehicle as a search incident to arrest. View "Texas v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Applicant Malcolm Evans was charged with causing serious bodily injury to a child. After the State abandoned a deadly weapon allegation, he pled guilty with a 50-year cap, and the trial court sentenced him to 50 years in prison. Applicant claimed his plea was involuntary because his attorney misadvised him about the effect of a deadly weapon finding on his parole eligibility. He contended that if his attorney had correctly advised him, he would have insisted on going to trial. The habeas court found those claims to be true and recommended that the Court of Criminal Appeals grant relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals found the habeas court’s findings were supported by the record. The only issue presented, then, was whether the law as it existed when Applicant’s conviction became final entitled him to relief. The Court concluded it did. View "Ex parte Malcolm Evans" on Justia Law

Cristian Aguilar, a Honduran national with temporary protected status, pleaded guilty to the state-jail felony of attempting to evade arrest in a motor vehicle and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. In his application for a writ of habeas corpus, Aguilar alleged that his plea counsel, who gave incorrect advice regarding the immigration consequences of the guilty plea, was ineffective and his plea was involuntary. The Court of Criminal Appeals found, after review, Aguilar had shown he would not have pleaded guilty if he had been correctly advised of the relevant immigration consequences. Therefore, the Court held ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his plea involuntary and vacated his plea. View "Ex parte Cristian Aguilar" on Justia Law

Appellee Kimberly Ford was indicted for possession of methamphetamine. The drugs were seized from her purse at a Dollar General store during a theft investigation. The investigating officer informed appellee that she had been seen concealing items in her purse. Appellee responded that she had put items in her purse, but she was not done shopping, and she was going to pay for the items before she left. The officer noticed that appellee had a shopping cart and that there were items from the store in the cart that were not in her purse. The purse was in the child seat of the shopping cart and was covered by a blue jacket. The officer picked up the blue jacket and discovered that the purse was zipped up and full of merchandise. Upon removing the store items from the purse, the officer discovered six small baggies of methamphetamine and two pills later identified as hydrocodone/ibuprophen. The store employee printed a receipt for the store items in the purse, and the total price was $75.10. Appellee was placed under arrest for theft over $50. Appellee filed a motion to suppress the drugs, and the police report of the incident was admitted at the suppression hearing. At issue for the Court of Criminal Appeals' review was whether a police officer had probable cause to arrest a customer for theft from a store (for concealing items in her purse) when she had not yet exited the store and when she claimed, after being confronted by the officer, that she was going to pay for the items she had taken. The Court concluded the officer had probable cause to arrest. View "Texas v. Ford" on Justia Law

A jury found Appellant Alvin Prine, Jr. guilty of sexual assault and sentenced him to 20 years’ confinement and a fine of $8,000. He claimed on appeal that his attorney was ineffective during the punishment phase of trial for calling three witnesses who gave damaging testimony on cross-examination. The Court of Appeals agreed and remanded the case for a new punishment hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, finding the defense attorney faced a dilemma in the punishment phase of this case. "The facets of that dilemma are not fully revealed by the record before us. Thus it is impossible to say that his decision to call these witnesses and suffer their cross-examination was so unreasonable that no other attorney would have made the same decision." Without a more fully developed record, the court of appeals erred to hold that the trial attorney was ineffective as a matter of law. View "Prine v. Texas" on Justia Law

Real Party in Interest Mitchell Childers was accused of two counts of indecency with a child by contact. Childers moved the District Court to order the State to deliver the two victims’ video recorded Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) interviews to the official court reporter for transcription. Childers’s motion also requested a copy of the transcripts be forwarded to his attorney at no cost. The judge’s order granted Childers’s motion over the State’s objection. The State contended the order violated Article 39.15(c) and informed the judge that it would likely seek mandamus relief. The next day and without further hearing or pleadings, the judge amended the order substantially. Claiming to “[b]alanc[e] the need for the legislative proscriptions found in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 39.15 with constitutional due process and right of counsel to be afforded the defendant in preparation for trial,” the amended order denied Childers’s motion. Yet the amended order still ordered the videos transcribed, and placed the transcriptions under seal. In its petition for a writ of mandamus, the State challenged the trial judge’s order under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 38.45 and 39.15 and Texas Family Code section 264.408.. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the State failed to demonstrate the amended order fell outside the "discretion of the trial court in matters of discovery," and accordingly denied the State’s motion for leave to file its petition for a writ of mandamus. View "In re State of Texas ex rel. Jennifer Tharp" on Justia Law

Applicant Keith St. Aubin claimed Double Jeopardy when the State obtained multiple convictions against him in a single trial. He raised this claim for the first time in his habeas application brought under Texas Code Crim. Proc. Article11.07. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that this multiple-punishments double-jeopardy claim did not satisfy the "innocence-gateway" exception. Furthermore, because the double-jeopardy principles used to resolve the "new" case upon which applicant relied were not new, he has not satisfied the new-legal-basis exception. Because an exception to the prohibition against subsequent applications has not been satisfied, the Court dismissed this application. View "Ex parte Keith St. Aubin" on Justia Law