Pending PDR Cases

11/20/2025

1. “Can two extraneous shootings be admitted in a murder trial as same-transaction contextual evidence, when the undisputed testimony from an accomplice proved they were unrelated to the charged offense?”
2. “Can those same shootings be admitted to rebut a ‘defensive theory’ that was raised by the State?”
3. “Does an appellate court err in holding that evidence of extraneous shootings is more probative than prejudicial because it tends to prove the defendant acted in conformity with that evidence?”
4. “Can photographs and Instagram posts related to firearms be admitted in a murder trial when that evidence either is not related to the offense, or is not related to the defendant?”

11/06/25

“Is an officer authorized to make an arrest for an alleged offense as ‘within his presence or view’ when he has probable cause to arrest due to his post-incident investigation, even though the alleged offense occurred neither in his actual presence nor in his actual view?”

10/30/2025

State represented by SPA

“When an appellant makes multiple arguments against a trial court’s ruling and pursues only one on appeal, can the court of appeals properly ignore that argument, assume the trial court was right about an abandoned argument, and affirm?”

10/30/25

“Is a point of error on direct appeal of a criminal case waived if harm is not briefed?” 

10/16/2025

1. “In holding that a defendant can be ‘convicted of illegal weapon possession and simultaneously subject to a deadly weapon finding’ in the absence of a collateral felony to which the finding could attach, the Seventh Court of Appeals’ decision conflicts with those of its sister courts; thus, necessitating a review by this Court to resolve the issue.”
2. “The Court of Appeals’ decision regarding the propriety of the trial court’s inclusion in the judgment against Respondent of a deadly weapon finding when there was no associated felony to which that finding could be attached conflicts with this Court’s decision in Plummer v. State, and, thus, should be reviewed by the Court.”

10-16-25

1. “Given the distinct ‘make’ and ‘enter’ textual requirements of Article 42.013, and the due process functions they serve, did the court of appeals err in deciding that an affirmative finding of family-violence [AFFV] may appear for the first time in a written judgment even if a defendant receives no opportunity to object before the finding is entered on a judgment? (2 RR 1-29).”
2. “Given the largely irrevocable and undeniably harmful consequences that flow directly from the entry of an AFFV, did the court of appeals err in deciding that such a finding is not part of a defendant’s sentence? (2 RR 1-29).”

10/09/2025

“The court of appeal erred in its holding that the two [women], O.L. and O.G. were one and the same."

9/24/2025

1. “Since the appeal was abated, can this Court review the decision below, or is it effectively prevented from ever reviewing the statutory issue?

   Was any error jurisdictional requiring abatement? 

   If abatement was required, was the decision interlocutory? 

2. Under Article 42.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does “presence” mean physical presence in the courtroom or is videoconference allowed?
3. Assuming error, is a defendant harmed simply because he heard his sentence over videoconference rather than in person?
4. Assuming harmful error, is an entirely new sentencing hearing required when Article 42.03 only instructs that the sentence be pronounced in the defendant’s presence?”

9/24/2025

“Article V, Section 7 of the Texas Constitution gives district judges ‘judicial Power’ to hear and determine felony cases. Associate judges have no ‘judicial power.’ Nevertheless, the Legislature has authorized associate judges in Harris County to conduct voir dire and determine the makeup of a jury. Is the selection of a jury an ultimate judicial determination that only a district judge can make?”

7/30/2025

1. “Does testimony of a narrowly limited portion of an interview mislead jurors and necessitate the admission of more of the interview to answer broader, unasked questions under Rule 107?” 
2. “What standard for harm should be used when evaluating error regarding admissibility of evidence?” 

07/02/2025

1. “On Remand, Did The Court Of Appeals Correctly Decide Whether, And Under What Circumstances, Any Defendant-Including The Appellant (Lennox)-Might Raise A Claim That He Was Being Prosecuted Under The Wrong Statutory Subsection [32.21(e1)]-As This Court Directed In Green v. State, 682 S.W.3d 253, 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024)-Or, Upon 'De Novo' Review, Was Error Not Preserved On This Important Question Of State Law?”
2. “On Remand, Did The Court Of Appeals In Lennox Correctly Apply The Standard Of Review For Alleged Jury-Charge Error?”  

7/2/2025

“The Court of Appeals erred by approving the trial court’s decision to allow the State to use illegally obtained evidence through its insanity expert because: (1) McDonald’s  objection to the testimony and behavior of the State’s insanity expert was properly preserved and presented on appeal; and (2) the constitutional harm of the testimony was proven. (Issue 6)”

6/11/2025

State represented by SPA

“Does a Special Ranger commit impersonation and have the requisite intent to violate Tex. Pen. Code § 37.11 when arriving in his designated uniform while assuming he had authority to conduct an investigatory interview?”

6/11/2025

State represented by SPA

“Does a jury instruction on self-defense using deadly force preclude one on necessity? (Memorandum Opinion below, p. 5-6)”

5/28/2025

State represented by SPA

1. “Should Cook v. State, 884 S.W.2d 485 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), be overruled to the extent it holds that failing to limit the mental state definitions to the right conduct-element is error even when the jury charge otherwise leaves no doubt what the mental state requires?”
2. “Should failure to limit the abstract definition result in some harm in the absence of anyone telling jurors they could convict on something less than the offense requires?”  

5/21/2025

“Whether the 13th Court of Appeals’ mischaracterization of evidence resulted in an erroneous decision which ‘has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings . . . as to call for an exercise of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ power of supervision.’”

5/07/2025

4/23/2025

1. “Is Penal Code section 46.02, which says it is unlawful for a person to carry a gun outside of his house, unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion issued in Bruen?”
2. “If so, does a trial court err by instructing jurors that they cannot find a defendant was justified in using force if they believe the defendant violated this unconstitutional statute?” 

4/09/2025

State represented by SPA

1. “What role, if any, do a defendant’s personal experiences play in the determination of whether his perception of imminent harm under Tex. Penal Code § 9.22(1) is reasonable?”
2. “Are the reasonableness of both a defendant’s perception of necessity and his response wholly within the discretion of the jury, or can a court decide either is unreasonable as a matter of law?” 
3. “Must a harm analysis for charge error consider the likelihood that the outcome would have been different had the jury been properly instructed?”
4. “Was appellant entitled to an instruction on necessity and, if so, a new trial?”

4/09/2025

“The Fifth District Court of Appeals' finding that trial counsel's deficient performance did not prejudice Cervantes is error because the court used the wrong standard of review.” 

3/12/2025

1. “The court of appeals too narrowly construed its authority under Rule 43.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to modify judgments where there has been an omission in the judgment.”
2. “The court of appeals erred to limit the “statute of offense” field in a judgment to only elements of the underlying criminal offense where entry of ‘Sec. 22.021(f)’ was necessary for the lawful execution of a judgment under Art. 42.01 and calculation of an inmate’s parole eligibility per Govt. Code Sec. 508.145(a).”
3. “The court of appeals erred to conclude that the recital that ‘the victim or intended victim was younger than 6 years of age at the time of the offense’ was a sufficient affirmative finding for purposes of Govt. Code Sec. 508.145(a).”

03/12/2025

“Whether the court of appeals erred when held that McDonald enjoyed a Sixth Amendment right to counsel ten years after an initial investigation resulted in a grand jury no-bill?”

02/26/2025

State represented by SPA

1. “Does ‘inducing a child to engage in sexual conduct’ for purposes of sexual performance by a child require the child’s consent or some measurable degree of participation?”  
2. “If the evidence was insufficient to prove the completed offense, did the court of appeals properly state and apply the standard for reformation to attempted sexual performance by a child?” 

01/29/2025

1. “The lower court’s opinion arguing that the plain-view doctrine is equivalent to standing and can be raised for the first time on appeal creates a split amongst the appellate courts that must be resolved by this Court. State v. Elrod, 395 S.W.3d 869 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013)[.]”
2. “Is the plain-view doctrine equivalent to a standing issue that falls within the waiver exception, allowing the State to raise it for the first time on appeal?”
3. “Did the appellate court afford the trial court proper deference in overturning its order based on a legal theory the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on?”
4. “Did the appellate court erroneously apply the plain-view doctrine?”
5. “Did the appellate court erroneously apply the independent source doctrine?”
6. “Did the appellate court err in overruling the trial court’s finding that the arrest warrant for possession was not supported by probable cause?”
7. “Did the appellate court err in finding the trial court owed the magistrate’s finding deference where the warrant affidavit was based on illegally obtained information?”

01/29/2025

“A majority of the court of appeals erred in finding that the lead detective was not reasonable in believing that Appellee’s mother had apparent authority to consent to the search of her apartment, including Appellee’s bedroom.”

01/22/2025

State represented by SPA

1. “Can a court determine that the State’s use of immunized testimony violated Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), without knowing the substance of that immunized testimony?”
2. “What is the proper framework to use for presentation and review of a Kastigar claim, including invocation, burden of proof, harm analysis, and remedy?”

01/22/2025

“Did the court of appeals error in holding that must apply a mechanical, strict requirement that inventory searches ‘must not deviate’ in any detail from department policy?”

12/18/2024

State represented by SPA

1. “Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Petitioner failed to satisfy the Strickland test for ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim.”
2. “Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the record lacked any showing the need for an expert.”

11/20/2024

1. “Did the appeals court lose jurisdiction when Stephen Tyler, an assistant district attorney of Jackson County, rather than Pamela E. Guenther, the elected district attorney of Jackson County, filed the notice of appeal?”
2. “Did the appeals court regain its jurisdiction when the elected district attorney filed its corrected notice of appeal, January 29, 2024, 41 days after the trial court’s order of December 19, 2023 granting Petitioner a new trial?”
3. “Did the appeals court err, April 19, 2024, when it, by an order en banc, denied Petitioner’s motion to dismiss State’s appeal for want of jurisdiction?”

06/05/2024

“Did the court of appeals err in holding that the jury need only find the defendant acted recklessly to convict him of aggravated robbery under the ‘intent to promote or assist’ theory of party liability?”

08/23/2023

1. “Can appellate jurisdiction be ‘substantially’ invoked by an appeal bond that does not comply with all statutory requirements?”
2. “Did the court of appeals err when it interpreted ‘may’ to mean ‘shall’ in Code of Criminal Procedure article 44.15, depriving appellate courts discretion by requiring them to allow amendment or substitution of defective appeal bonds?”

08/21/2024

“Did the appellate court misapply the legal sufficiency standard of review by:

• crediting Appellant’s self-serving testimony which the trial court reasonably could have disregarded; and/or
• resolving an ambiguity in Appellant’s testimony in Appellant’s favor; and/or
• reweighing evidence in favor of the defense; and/or
• ignoring evidence that supported the verdict; and/or
• applying sufficiency analyses long rejected by this Court; and/or
• failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict[?]”

08/21/2024

“The Second Court of Appeals decided an important question of federal law that is not settled by the Court of Criminal appeals when it held that Appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment due process right was not violated by having a virtual hearing on a motion to adjudicate guilt and subsequent sentencing hearing despite his request to be physically present before and during the proceedings.”

4/26/2023

State represented by SPA

STATE’S PDR

1. “Does a court of appeals have the authority to abate for an out-of time motion for new trial and preemptively compel a hearing thereon?”
2. “The court of appeals’s review of the trial court’s ruling was procedurally and substantively defective.”

APPELLANT’S PDR

1. “Did the court of appeals misconstrue plain view to permit an inadvertent vantage point rather than a lawful vantage point?”
2. “Does a person’s limited consent encompass an officer inadvertently exceeding the scope of that consent?”