Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Cody Thomas agreed to enter an open plea of guilty to state-jail felony theft as a lesser-included offense of the charged offense of third-degree felony engaging in organized criminal activity. Because the State sought to enhance the state-jail felony theft charge with two prior convictions, the parties believed appellant was subject to a punishment range for a second-degree felony. The trial judge sentenced appellant to twenty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the court of appeals determined that this twenty-year sentence was illegal due to an improper application of prior-conviction enhancements resulting in a sentence outside the statutory range, and it remanded the case for a new punishment hearing. In its petition for discretionary review, the State did not challenge the court of appeals’s holding that appellant’s sentence was illegal, but it contended the court of appeals erred by remanding appellant’s case for resentencing because the proper remedy for the illegal sentence under these circumstances is setting aside appellant’s guilty plea. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the State’s position that, because this was a negotiated plea-bargain agreement for an illegal range of punishment, the parties must be returned to their original positions prior to entering into that plea bargain. Accordingly, the Court reversed the court of appeals’s judgment that had remanded this case for a new punishment hearing, instead setting aside appellant’s guilty plea and remanding this case for a new trial in its entirety. View "Thomas v. Texas" on Justia Law

Jonathan Salvador worked as a laboratory technician at the Houston Police Department's Crime Lab Division from 2006 to 2012. The Texas Forensic Science Commission (“TFSC”) published a full report in January 2013 detailing problems Salvador had throughout his employment with DPS. The investigation uncovered that there were two cases in which Salvador had made errors in the testing of substances involving marijuana, though those errors did not involve “dry-labbing.” Several reports of Salvador’s work indicated that Salvador’s tenure at DPS began with testing and reporting on marijuana substances. In this case, misconduct by Salvador has again presented questions of the falsity and materiality of the evidence tested to support a possession of a controlled substance charge. The State initially agreed that relief should be granted based upon “Ex parte Coty,” (418 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)). The trial court did not. The trial court rejected the State and Applicant’s proposed findings and recommended to the Court of Criminal Appeals that relief be denied. Based on an independent review of the record, the Court agreed with the habeas court and denied relief. View "Ex parte Owens" on Justia Law

Appellant Bradley McClintock lived in an upstairs residence above a business. Access to his residence could be gained through a stairway at the back of the building. Police took a drug-sniffing dog to Appellant’s door, where the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. This fact was included in a warrant affidavit upon which a warrant to search the residence issued. Charged with possession of a felony amount of marijuana, Appellant filed a motion to suppress the contraband, contending that it had been obtained under a search warrant that was not supported by probable cause. Specifically, he argued that the police had conducted an illegal search at the door to his apartment using a drug-sniffing dog, and then incorporated that ill-gotten information into the search warrant affidavit. The trial court denied the motion, expressly holding that the police dog had not invaded the curtilage of Appellant’s home at the time it alerted to the presence of contraband, and that the use of a drug dog therefore did not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Appellant then pled guilty to a reduced charge, preserving his right to appeal the adverse ruling on his motion to suppress The issue this case presented for the Court of Criminal Appeals’ review centered on the proper construction of Article 38.23(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the statutory good-faith exception to the statutory exclusionary rule. The Court reviewed this case once before on discretionary review. At that time, the Court remanded it to the court of appeals to allow that court to address, in the first instance, whether the United States Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of the court-made good-faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule in “Davis v. United States,” (564 U.S. 229 (2011)), should have any application in the construction of Texas’ statutory good-faith exception to Texas’ statutory exclusionary rule. The court of appeals issued its opinion; the State again petitioned court for discretionary review, which was granted. The Court of Criminal Appeals held the trial court did not err to overrule Appellant’s motion to suppress. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. View "McClintock v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Jamie Villa participated with gang members in a gang-related assault. The complainant testified that he was assaulted by gang members and that appellant was one of the people who assaulted him. The court of appeals held that the evidence was insufficient to show that appellant was himself a member of the gang. After review, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the court of appeals failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and that it therefore erred in holding the evidence to be insufficient. View "Villa v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Mike Ulloa was charged with two counts of tampering with physical evidence. The alleged date of the offenses was December 21, 2009. The offenses were originally charged by complaint and information on February 2, 2011. They were then charged by indictment on May 3, 2011. This indictment was dismissed on April 17, 2012. The offenses were again charged by complaint and information on February 26, 2014. The offenses were ultimately charged in the current indictment on August 20, 2015. No provision specifically prescribed a limitations period for tampering with physical evidence, so the catch-all provision for felonies applied, providing a limitations period of three years. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of habeas relief when Appellant challenged the timing of the indictments. The State argued limitations was tolled during the pendency of the informations by virtue of Article 12.05. The time period between those two dates exceeded three years, but two informations were filed in this case. Each information was terminated by the return of an indictment. If the time periods between the filing of each information and the return of the corresponding superseding indictment were excluded, then less than three years elapsed for limitations purposes. The question presented for the Court of Criminal Appeals was whether these informations were pending for the purpose of Article 12.05. The Court concluded that it did. Consequently, the Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Ex parte Ulloa" on Justia Law

Appellant Orlando Salinas challenged the assessment of a consolidated fee (or court costs, the payment of which is statutorily mandated when a defendant is convicted in a criminal case). The fees at issue were to be distributed to two accounts: an account for “abused children’s counseling” and an account for “comprehensive rehabilitation.” Appellant claimed that the unconstitutionality of these two statutory provisions rendered the entire consolidated fee statute unconstitutional. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that, with respect to the collection and allocation of funds for these two accounts, the statute was facially unconstitutional in violation of separation of powers. The Court also held, however, that the invalidity of these two statutory provisions did not render the statute as a whole unconstitutional. As a result, the Court held that any fee assessed pursuant to the consolidated fee statute had to be reduced pro rata to eliminate the percentage of the fee associated with these two accounts. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment modifying the court costs in appellant’s case. View "Salinas v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Us Carnell Petetan, Jr. was charged with the capital murder of his wife, Kimberly Petetan. The indictment alleged that he intentionally caused her death during the course of committing or attempting to commit the offenses of burglary, kidnapping (of Kimberly or her daughter A.W.), and retaliation. A jury found him guilty, for which he was ultimately sentenced to death. Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals was automatic; he raised thirty points of alleged error at trial. The Court noted that appellant was convicted of a capital felony, but otherwise found no reversible error and affirmed appellant’s conviction and sentence. View "Petetan v. Texas" on Justia Law

A police officer pulled appellee Mary Zuniga over after she ran a stop sign in front of her home. During the stop, the officer observed a bottle of medicine in Zuniga’s vehicle. When Zuniga was unable to produce a valid prescription for the syrup, the officer arrested her and placed her in the back of his police car. Soon after, the officer observed Zuniga reach into her groin area and pull something out with her hands cupped. The officer then observed Zuniga move her hands towards her mouth and lean her head down as if to swallow “something.” The officer took Zuniga to the hospital where medical professionals pumped Appellee’s stomach and performed an x-ray. They did not find any illegal substance or a baggie. The State neither tested the results of Appellee’s stomach purge for an illegal substance nor requested any testing of her blood. The State indicted Zuniga on tampering with physical evidence. The issue this case presented for review was when the State charges someone with tampering with physical evidence, was the specific identity of the tampered-with evidence an essential element of the offense? The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the State and the court of appeals that it was not. However, the court of appeals did not appear to have addressed whether the language in the indictment provided adequate notice of the charged conduct, so the Court remanded the case to give the lower court an opportunity to do so. View "Texas v. Zuniga" on Justia Law

Appellee was charged with delivery of a dangerous drug under Texas Health and Safety Code Section 483.042(a). The trial court granted his motion to quash the indictment. The State appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the order quashing the indictment. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State Prosecuting Attorney’s petition for discretionary review to consider whether a charging instrument alleging delivery of a named dangerous drug must also specify whether it is a device or drug. Concluding that it need not, the Court remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of the State’s remaining points of error. View "Texas v. Jarreau" on Justia Law

Appellant Eric Baumgart acted as a security guard but had no license for doing so. He was charged with committing violations of the Private Security Act, in the Occupations Code. Appellant filed motions to quash and to dismiss these indictments. One of his allegations was that each of the indictments failed to contain language negating statutory exceptions to the offense. The primary exception that appellant relied upon was that he was a law enforcement officer, but there were a dozen statutory provisions that he claimed created exceptions that the State was required to negate in the indictment. The trial court denied appellant’s motions, and appellant was subsequently convicted. On appeal, appellant again raised his claim that the indictments failed to negate applicable statutory exceptions. The court of appeals focused on the law enforcement provision and stated that the exception was contained within a separate section from the section that stated the offense and, in fact, was contained within a separate subchapter titled “Exceptions.” Further, the court concluded that a prima facie case of acting as a security services contractor without a license could be made without proof that negated the law enforcement exception. Consequently, the court of appeals rejected appellant’s contention, and it ultimately affirmed his conviction. Finding no reversible error in the appellate court’s judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. View "Baumgart v. Texas" on Justia Law