Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Shanea Lynn Reeder, who was convicted for Unlawful Possession of Firearm and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. At the time of his arrest, Reeder was serving deferred-adjudication community supervision for a felony offense of distributing a controlled substance. Reeder, representing himself, argued that his conviction was improper as he had not been convicted of a felony at the time of his arrest.Prior to the current review, two hearings were held on the same day. In the first, Reeder pled guilty to Unlawful Possession of Firearm and was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. In the second, the State alleged Reeder violated conditions of his deferred-adjudication community supervision for the controlled-substance offense. Reeder pled true to the violations, and the court found him guilty, sentencing him to a concurrent term of 5 years' imprisonment. Later, Reeder filed a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his conviction was improper because he was not a convicted felon at the time he was arrested for Unlawful Possession of Firearm.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case and had to decide whether serving deferred-adjudication community supervision constitutes being convicted of a felony for the purpose of Unlawful Possession of Firearm. The court concluded that it does not. Therefore, the court agreed that Reeder was not convicted of a felony at the time of his arrest for Unlawful Possession of Firearm. The court also held that Reeder's plea was involuntary due to a fundamental misunderstanding by all parties of the law in relation to the facts at the time the plea was made. As a result, the court set aside the judgment of conviction for Unlawful Possession of Firearm, and Reeder was allowed to withdraw his plea. The judgment on the motion to adjudicate the underlying offense of distributing a controlled substance remained undisturbed, with Reeder serving 5 years' imprisonment for that violation. View "EX PARTE SHANEA LYNN REEDER" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an applicant who pleaded guilty to causing serious bodily injury to a child. The trial court deferred finding her guilty and placed her on community supervision. However, two months later, she was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 15 years in prison. The applicant raised two claims in her habeas application. First, she argued that her guilty plea was involuntary because her attorney did not inform her that the victim had not suffered serious bodily injury. Second, she claimed that her attorney was ineffective at the adjudication stage for not offering evidence in support of a conviction for the lesser-included offense of causing bodily injury to a child.The trial court had recommended denying relief, but the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas found the trial court's findings to be faulty. The primary issue was whether the applicant pleaded guilty without knowing that the medical expert believed there was no serious bodily injury. The trial court found otherwise, but the Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed, finding that the defense attorney did not inform the applicant about the medical expert's opinion.The secondary issue was whether the applicant would have insisted on trial if she had known about the true state of the evidence of serious bodily injury. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that the record supported the applicant's claim that she would have insisted on trial, as she had a good chance of an acquittal of the serious bodily injury element and would have faced much less punishment without it.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas granted relief, setting aside the judgment in the case and remanding the applicant to the custody of the Sheriff of Harrison County to face the charges against her. View "EX PARTE MICHELLE LEE HAYES" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a defendant who was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to sixty years in prison. The defendant was the victim's mother's boyfriend, and they lived together for about five years. The victim testified that the defendant sexually abused her when she was six or seven years old. The abuse was reported to the Polk County Sheriff’s Department by Alyssa Crawford, who learned about it from the victim. Two years later, during the trial, the State moved to present Crawford’s testimony via Zoom due to her fear of retaliation, her responsibility of caring for her husband with a broken back, and a conflicting court appearance in Colorado. The defendant objected, arguing that allowing Crawford to testify remotely would violate his right to confront her face to face.The trial court overruled the defendant's objection and allowed Crawford to testify via Zoom. The court of appeals, however, reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court’s necessity finding in support of its ruling was too general and unjustified by any public-policy interest.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals. It held that the trial court’s necessity finding was sufficient and justified by the witness’s fear of retaliation. The court noted that retaliation is a crime and protecting witnesses from retaliation is an important public-policy interest. The court also pointed out that Crawford had provided a basis for her fear—death threats and break-ins at her home soon after her report to the sheriff. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "MCCUMBER v. STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

The case involves the State of Texas and Dwayne Robert Heath, who was indicted for injury to a child in 2016. Heath's counsel requested discovery from the District Attorney's Office, which provided law enforcement records, child protective services records, and photographs. However, a 911 call made by the complainant's mother on the date of the alleged offense was not disclosed until six days before the fourth trial setting, despite being in the possession of law enforcement since 2016. Heath's counsel filed a motion to suppress the 911 call, alleging that the evidence was improperly withheld in violation of Article 39.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and various constitutional provisions.The trial court granted Heath's motion to suppress the 911 call, concluding that the State violated Article 39.14(a) by failing to disclose the 911 call "as soon as practicable" after Heath's timely request for discovery. The State appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The State then sought discretionary review from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that under Article 39.14, "the state" means the State of Texas, which includes law enforcement agencies. The court also held that "as soon as practicable" means as soon as the State is reasonably capable of doing so. Therefore, the State violated its duty under Article 39.14 by failing to timely disclose the 911 call. The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the 911 call due to the State's untimely disclosure. View "Texas v. Heath" on Justia Law

The case involves William Alan Null, who was convicted of second-degree felony sexual assault. A DNA analyst testified that Null was linked to a previous sexual assault by comparing his DNA profile to profiles developed by a third-party laboratory. Null objected, arguing that the analyst's testimony was unreliable as she had no personal knowledge about the third-party laboratory or its data. The trial court overruled Null's objection, and he was sentenced to 60 years' confinement. Null appealed, and the court of appeals ordered a new punishment trial.The court of appeals had previously affirmed the trial court's decision, but later overturned part of its decision, granting a new punishment trial. The State petitioned for discretionary review, arguing that the court of appeals erred in its interpretation of the Texas Rules of Evidence and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The court held that the DNA analyst's testimony was reliable under Rule 702 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, as she had relied on data produced by technicians and a forensic analyst employed by a well-known and accredited third-party forensic laboratory. The court also held that the court of appeals should not have decided the judicial notice issue, as it was moot given that Null had forfeited the arguments the issue was based on. View "Null v. Texas" on Justia Law

In this case, Hector Acosta was convicted of capital murder for fatally shooting Erick Zelaya and Iris Chirinos in the same criminal transaction. The trial court sentenced Acosta to death based on the jury’s answers to special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, Sections 2(b) and 2(e). Acosta appealed, raising seventeen points of error.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence of death. The court found that the trial court did not err in denying Acosta's motions for continuance, motions to suppress, and in admitting certain evidence. The court also found that Acosta's statements to the police were voluntary and that he had knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. The court further found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting surveillance video footage, as it was properly authenticated.The court also rejected Acosta's arguments that the State improperly highlighted his Mexican nationality as evidence of future dangerousness, finding that the State did not offer specific evidence of Acosta’s Mexican nationality as evidence of future dangerousness, nor did the State argue that Acosta was a future danger because he is Mexican or from Mexico. The court concluded that Acosta failed to preserve these claims at trial, and therefore, the court could not review them on appeal. View "Acosta v. State" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an incident where the appellant, after spending time at a bar called the Crying Shame, retrieved his registered handgun from his motorcycle's saddlebag and placed it in his waistband. As he was about to leave, he was approached by three bar patrons, leading to a physical altercation in the parking lot. During the altercation, the gun was removed from the appellant's pants and thrown onto the bar's roof. The appellant was charged with unlawful carrying of a weapon, which was enhanced to a third-degree felony by alleging the offense occurred on a “premises” licensed to sell alcoholic beverages.The trial court used the definition of “premises” from the Alcoholic Beverage Code in its charge to the jury, which included the grounds and all buildings, vehicles, and appurtenances pertaining to the grounds, including any adjacent premises if they are directly or indirectly under the control of the same person. The jury found the appellant guilty and he was sentenced to four years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which was probated for four years.On appeal, the appellant argued that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the parking lot was part of the “premises” of the Crying Shame. The court of appeals initially affirmed the trial court’s judgment but later reversed the conviction on remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, holding that the State’s evidence was legally insufficient to support the statutory enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' decision, stating that the State did not provide legally sufficient evidence to support an enhancement element beyond a reasonable doubt. The case was remanded to the trial court for a new punishment hearing. View "BALTIMORE v. STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

The case involves Darren Tramell Hughes, who was on deferred adjudication community supervision. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Hughes had violated the terms of his supervision by committing two forgery offenses and failing to pay required fees. The hearing on the motion was conducted via Zoom due to COVID-19 restrictions. During the hearing, Hughes was muted several times when he attempted to speak. Hughes was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to ten years imprisonment.On appeal, Hughes argued that his right to be present under the Due Process Clause was violated due to his muting during the hearing. The court of appeals reversed the decision, holding that his right to be present under the Confrontation Clause was violated, even though Hughes did not raise this issue in his brief. The court of appeals found that Hughes was turned into a passive observer, unable to communicate with his counsel and participate in his own defense.The case was then brought before the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. The court agreed with the lower court's decision that Hughes's right to be present was violated. However, it clarified that the right to be present under the Due Process Clause, not the Confrontation Clause, applies in hearings on motions to adjudicate guilt. The court further explained that this right is waivable, not forfeitable, and that Hughes did not waive this right. The court concluded that the trial court's action of muting Hughes was not harmless and affected his ability to defend himself. The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "HUGHES V. STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

In 1987, six young women and girls disappeared in El Paso, Texas, and were later found buried in shallow graves. In 1992, David Leonard Wood was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for these crimes. Since then, Wood has filed multiple motions for DNA testing, the first of which was granted in 2010. However, subsequent motions resulted in proceedings that stretched over a decade, with the trial court ultimately denying DNA testing in 2022.In the lower courts, Wood's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in 1995. He filed a state habeas application in 1997, which was denied in 2001. Over the years, Wood filed multiple motions for DNA testing, the first of which was granted in 2010. However, the remaining DNA motions resulted in proceedings that stretched over a decade, with the trial court ultimately denying DNA testing in 2022.In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Wood appealed the 2022 denial of testing. He raised six issues, only two of which directly addressed the question of whether he should have been granted DNA testing of biological evidence. The court concluded that none of Wood’s issues had merit and affirmed the trial court’s order. The court held that Wood failed to meet the second prong of Article 64.03(a)(2): he failed to show that his subsequent DNA testing requests were not made to unreasonably delay the execution of his sentence. View "WOOD V. STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the defendant, Larry Jean Hart, who was charged with capital murder while committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of burglary. Hart drove an acquaintance and three other individuals to an apartment complex where they robbed and shot the complainant, Michael Gardner. Hart claimed he remained in the car during the incident and was unaware of the group's intentions. The State argued that Hart knew about the planned crime and should have anticipated the outcome.The trial court admitted rap videos during the guilt phase of the trial to demonstrate Hart's character and sophistication. Hart objected, arguing that the videos' prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value. The trial court overruled Hart's objections, stating that Hart's testimony opened the door to character witness evidence. The jury found Hart guilty and sentenced him to life without parole.On appeal, Hart argued that the trial court erred in admitting the rap videos, among other things. The appellate court upheld the trial court's ruling, stating that the rap videos were relevant to Hart's ability to comprehend and form intent regarding the planned crime. The court also conducted a balancing test under Rule 403 and concluded that the trial court's ruling did not constitute a clear abuse of discretion.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas disagreed with the lower courts. It found that the rap videos' probative value was outweighed by their potential for prejudice and confusion. The court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Hart v. State of Texas" on Justia Law