Texas Capitol

Search Petitions, Briefs and Summaries

Petition filed by SPA icon denotes a petition filled by SPA

RAMJATTANSINGH, JASON

11/15/2017

1. “Does the filing of a charging instrument containing non-statutory language prohibit the appellate court from considering the hypothetically correct jury charge in a sufficiency review?” 2. “Did the First Court of Appeals sit as a thirteenth juror when holding that a two-hour interval between...

CARTER, DOUGLAS

11/08/2017

“Did the court of appeals err in holding that Section 133.102(a)(1) of the Texas Local Government Code by which the ‘consolidated court cost’ was assessed is not facially unconstitutional?”

EX PARTE GARCIA, SAMUEL OSVALDO

11/01/2017

“Is a claim that counsel misadvised a defendant about the deportation consequences associated with a guilty plea cognizable on habeas despite Ex parte De Los Reyes’ holding that Padilla does not apply retroactively on habeas?”

HANSON, CRISPEN

11/01/2017

1. “Where, regardless of whether the shock-probation order was ‘original’ or ‘amended,’ because it is a type of order identified as appealable under the plain language of article 44.01, and because the State’s notice of appeal was filed within 20 days from the amended order’s entry, the Eighth Co...

LACKEY, KELSEY

11/01/2017

“Did Appellant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive his right of appeal by signing a boilerplate waiver?”

ARROYO, DAVID

10/25/2017

1.  “In light of significant statutory changes, does Nelson v. State have continued validity when interpreting § 21.11 of the Texas Penal Code?” 2.  “Under § 21.11 of the Texas Penal Code, what is a ‘breast’?”

WATERS, AMANDA

10/25/2017

“Whether this Court should explicitly overrule Tarver and the concept of state collateral estoppel since collateral estoppel should not bar the State from prosecuting a criminal offense following to an adverse finding at a probation revocation hearing.”

BOYETT, CRYSTAL

10/18/2017

“The court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court's judgment because the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to satisfy the statutory standard of ‘some evidence’ necessary to require a ‘formal competency hearing.’”