1. “Did the court of appeals err by determining that Texas Government Code § 30.00027 deprived the intermediate appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeal from an adverse decision made by a county-level court reviewing a judgment from a municipal court of record? a. Does Chapter 3...
APPELLANT’S ISSUE Did the court of appeals improperly substitute its own judgment for a jury’s that was never given the opportunity with proper instruction? STATE’S ISSUE The court of appeals’s harm analysis did not consider the unlikelihood that the jury would have reached the necessity issue gi...
1. “Does the Confrontation Clause require a trial court to detail the legal and factual underpinnings for its finding that a necessity under Haggard v. State, 612 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020), warrants dispensing with in-person confrontation for a witness?” 2. “If so, did the defendant fo...
“The Court of Appeals Erred to Find That the State Was Required to Provide Appellant with Specific Notice as to Which Manner and Means the State Would Seek to Prove.”
(1) “By holding that before a pretrial facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is cognizable, a favorable resolution of the challenge must result in immediate release on all charges in the indictment, the Eighth Court of Appeals has decided an important question of state law tha...
1. “A divided appellate court ignored the law governing the review of suppression rulings by usurping the deference given to the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses and evidence.” 2. “A divided appellate court disagreed on a material question of law necessary to the court’s decision ...
“The Court of Appeals erred by declaring that the evidence developed in the hearing on Petitioner’s motion for new trial was void because the trial court had no authority to hold the hearing beyond the trial court’s 75-day plenary period, even though the trial court relied on the plain language i...
“Did the lower court properly adopt a restitution standard under Bailey [v. State, 171 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005)] or did this Court’s opinion in Hanna [v. State, 426 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)] replace any pre-Hanna restitution standards, which eliminated any conflict...
denotes a petition filled by SPA