1. “Whether the majority opinion fails to defer to the strong presumption that trial counsel’s decision not to pursue a sudden passion instruction fell within the wide range of reasonably professional assistance?” 2. “Whether the majority opinion’s harm analysis improperly disregards the effect ...
1. “Is the fact of a witness’s inconsistency coupled with the jury’s prerogative to disbelieve part of his testimony affirmative evidence that supports submission of a lesser-included offense?” 2. “While evidence can be ‘weak, impeached, or contradicted’ and still raise a lesser-included offense...
1. “The 11th Court of Appeals erred where it decided an important question of state law, specifically what constitutes an ‘additional or different offense’ in the context of Texas Penal Code section 22.011(a)(2), based on erroneous statutory interpretation that conflicts with decisions of the Cou...
“The Court of Appeals erred when it determined that the interaction between the Appellant and Officers Sallee and Starks was at all times a consensual encounter. Although the encounter may have initially been consensual, the encounter quickly escalated into an investigative detention that was not...
1. “Did the trial court have jurisdiction to hold a trial while the State’s petition for discretionary review was pending in this Court?” 2. “Are speedy trial claims cognizable on pretrial habeas if the applicant asks for a speedy trial rather than dismissal?” 3. “Did the court of appeals imprope...
“Whether the Fourteenth Court of Appeals improperly acted as a ‘thirteenth juror’ by re-evaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence showing that the complainant’s gunshot wounds constituted serious bodily injury?”
“The Court of Appeals erred in holding that evidence of a high level of cocaine in a child’s body alone is sufficient to prove that the child suffered ‘serious mental deficiency, impairment or injury,’ as required for conviction of injury to a child.”
“[T]he decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeals to uphold his conviction holding to John[son] v. State 72, S.W.3d 346, 347(Tex.Crim.App.) is in conflict with other Court rulings [and] based on the circumstances of Rios’s case the Court of Appeals should have held to State EX Rel Curry v. C...
denotes a petition filled by SPA