Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to adequately advise appellant Manuel Torres regarding the presumptively mandatory deportation consequences of his guilty plea. Appellant was a Mexican national whose parents brought him to the United States as a young two- or three-year-old child. In 2006, appellant obtained lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, which gave him legal permission to reside and work in this country. In February 2011, appellant, on two occasions, went to Whataburger restaurants and stole money from the cash registers. At the time of his arrest for those offenses, appellant was found to be in possession of cocaine and marijuana. He was subsequently charged with the felony offenses of robbery and possession of cocaine. Appellant entered into a plea bargain with the State. In exchange for appellant’s plea of guilty to both offenses, the State agreed to recommend a sentence of ten years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision on the robbery charge and five years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision on the possession charge. In addition, the State agreed to forgo prosecution of a related burglary-of-a-building charge and to decline prosecution on a misdemeanor possession-of-marijuana charge. The trial court accepted appellant’s guilty plea, and it sentenced him in accordance with the State’s recommendations. Several days after the plea hearing, appellant was re-arrested on separate charges. At that point, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) became aware of appellant’s plea to the robbery and possession offenses, and it placed a detainer on him that would prevent him from being released from law-enforcement custody. ICE subsequently transferred appellant to a federal immigration detention facility, and it initiated removal proceedings against him. The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the record supported the trial court’s conclusion that appellant was not prejudiced as a result of counsel’s error because appellant failed to show that he would have pursued a trial had he been correctly advised about the immigration consequences of his plea. Accordingly, the Court overruled the State’s third ground in its petition for discretionary review that contended that trial counsel did not render deficient performance, and the Court sustained the first two grounds that asserted that the court of appeals erred by determining that appellant was prejudiced. The trial court's judgment was reinstated, denying relief. View "Ex parte Manuel Torres" on Justia Law

In February 2014, a jury convicted appellant Brandon Daniel of the capital murder of peace officer Jaime Padron, for which he was sentenced to death. Appeal to the court of Criminal Appeals was automatic; appellant raised three alleged errors to challenge his sentence. Finding no merit to any of the challenges, the Court affirmed appellant's conviction and sentence. View "Daniel v. Texas" on Justia Law

In January 1991, a jury convicted appellant Carl Buntion of capital murder for an offense committed in June 1990. He was given the death sentence. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal; appellant's initial request for habeas relief was denied. A subsequent application was granted, and the case remanded for a new punishment hearing. The new hearing was held in February 2012, the conclusion of which was again the death sentence. Appellant raised twenty-seven alleged errors in appeal of the second punishment hearing. Finding no merit to any, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the death sentence. View "Buntion v. Texas" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea bargain, applicant Gilmore Cox plead guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance (Count I) and no contest to one count of possession of certain chemicals with intent to manufacture a controlled substance (Count II). The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment on Count I and thirty-five years’ imprisonment on Count II, with the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, applicant challenged his conviction on Count II, alleging that it failed to sufficiently allege an offense. The state argued that the court of appeals should have dismissed this appeal because he had entered his pleas and waived appeal as part of a plea bargain. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus. After review, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that, because the plea bargain was a package deal and part of this plea bargain could not be fulfilled, the entire plea bargain was unenforceable, thus the parties must be returned to their original positions. This case was remanded back to the trial court for re-sentencing. View "Ex parte Gilmore Cox" on Justia Law

In June 2012, a jury convicted appellant Stanley Griffin of the 2010 capital murder of Jennifer Hailey. Based on the jury’s answers to special issues (set forth in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e)), the trial judge sentenced appellant to death. After reviewing appellant’s arguments on appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that the record did not support the offense of capital murder. Consequently, the Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and sentence and remanded this case back to the trial court for reformation of the judgment and a new punishment hearing. View "Griffin v. Texas" on Justia Law

In January 1991, a jury convicted appellant Carl Buntion of capital murder for an offense committed in June 1990. Based upon the jury’s answers to special issues (set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e)), the trial judge sentenced appellant to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant’s initial state application for habeas corpus relief was denied. Appellant’s subsequent application was granted, and the case was remanded for a new punishment hearing. The trial court held a new punishment hearing in February 2012. Based on the jury’s answers to the special issues, the trial judge again sentenced appellant to death. Appellant raised twenty-seven points of error in this automatic appeal. After reviewing appellant’s points of error, the Court of Criminal Appeals found no merit to any, and affirmed appellant's death sentence. View "Buntion v. Texas" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Patrick Marshall of felony assault against a family member. On appeal, the court of appeals held the evidence legally sufficient but the omission of the words “bodily injury” from the jury charge’s application paragraph egregiously harmed Marshall. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that the evidence was sufficient, but disagreed that the jury charge egregiously harmed Marshall because the jury charge sufficiently required the jury to find bodily injury by impeding normal breathing (a bodily injury per se). The Court therefore reversed the trial court's judgment. View "Marshall v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant James Fernandez was a Justice of the Peace in Val Verde County in 2012. In February 2012, appellant directed his chief deputy clerk, Veronica Mojica, to make travel arrangements for him to attend a conference in Orlando in June 2012. Mojica booked a nonrefundable plane ticket for appellant on a Southwest Airlines. The ticket was paid for with a county-owned credit card, issued in appellant’s name. After falling ill, appellant instructed Mojica to cancel all his travel arrangements associated with the June conference, including the Southwest Airlines flight. When Mojica cancelled the Orlando ticket, its $381.60 purchase price was converted into a ticket voucher for the same amount. This voucher was in appellant’s name and was set to expire on February 5, 2013. Later that year, the county auditor contacted Southwest Airlines and attempted to get a refund for the plane ticket Mojica had purchased, and then cancelled, for appellant. The auditor learned that the voucher had been used for a flight to Phoenix on August 8, 2012. Believing the Southwest Airlines voucher had been used for non-county-related travel, the auditor reached out to the Val Verde County Attorney, who in turn reached out to the Attorney General’s office. Appellant was ultimately convicted of theft by a public servant by way of deception. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether a public servant commits theft by deception when he purchases an airline ticket for county-approved travel with a county credit card but later uses the voucher resulting from the cancellation of the ticket for personal travel, without correcting the impression that the ticket would be used for county-approved business. The Court answered that question in the affirmative, and, consequently, affirmed the court of appeals. View "Fernandez v. Texas" on Justia Law

Appellant Jon Ford, and the murder victim in this case, Dana Edwards, started dating in 2007. The couple did not live together, but both lived in Alamo Heights. By mid-summer 2008 they were drifting apart. Dana ended the relationship in September of 2008. Nevertheless, because appellant and Dana ran in the same Alamo Heights circles, they wanted to remain friends, and their paths continued to cross. Appellant and Dana had both attended a mutual friend's New Year's Eve party. Something a friend had said irritated appellant, and he left the party early. Dana left the party approximately an hour later. Needing to return something appellant left at the party, the friend and his fiancée drove to appellant's home, but appellant's car was not outside. On New Year's Day, Dana's parents expected her to visit, but they were never able to reach her. The parents drove to Dana's home and found her dead. Police found visible lacerations and indications of blunt force trauma to the head. The medical examiner later determined that Dana Clair had died from asphyxiation due to ligature strangulation. Appellant volunteered a statement to police, stating he went home and was asleep before midnight the night of the party. Police would obtain evidence that would suggest otherwise: video surveillance footage from the bank across the street from Dana's condo complex captured a car resembling appellant's on the condo grounds shortly after he left the party. No one could definitively say that the white SUV in the bank video footage belonged to appellant, or that appellant was the figure seen walking in the surveillance video. The San Antonio District Attorney’s Office filed an application for four days' worth of historical 4 cell-site-location information (CSLI) for appellant’s cell phone. Other evidence suggested that appellant was in Dana's condo the night she died: appellant’s Y chromosome profile was found on two cuttings from the bloody towel that had been draped over Dana's face when she was found. Ultimately, the jury found appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to forty years' confinement. Among the issues raised and rejected on direct appeal was a Fourth Amendment argument that focused on admission of the historical cell-site-location information obtained from AT&T and used by the State to suggest appellant’s proximity to Dana Clair’s residence at the time of her murder. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the State's warrantless acquisition of the historical cell-site location information recorded by appellant's cell-phone service provider did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights, and affirmed the court of appeals' rejection of appellant's claims. View "Ford v. Texas" on Justia Law

The court of appeals reversed appellant Joseph Green's conviction for the aggravated assault of a child based on its conclusion that the trial court's instructions to the jury were erroneous and harmful to appellant. The State appealed. Although the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the court of appeals' error analysis in that the trial court should not have defined certain terms that were undefined in the applicable statute, but disagreed that appellant was harmed by the erroneous instructions. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Green v. Texas" on Justia Law