“Does a defendant suffer egregious harm from charge error that 1) related to an element the defendant effectively conceded and which was not a realistic possibility for acquittal, and 2) was limited to a manner and means of murder neither party argued over?”
“The Court of Appeals Erred in Holding That Appellant Raised a Cognizable Claim in a Pre-Trial Habeas Corpus Proceeding.” GRANTED ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION (1-17-24) "Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s finding that Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case ...
1. “When determining what felony offense was charged, must everything on the face of the charging instrument the grand jury had before it be considered?” 2. “Must a defendant object pretrial when the charging instrument creates doubt about which of two related offenses is being charged?”
ON COURT’S OWN MOTION “Did the court of appeals err in holding that the charge did not have to include a special jury unanimity instruction requiring that the jury be unanimous as to whether appellant was guilty of aggravated robbery by threat or aggravated robbery by bodily injury?”
1. “The court of appeals disregarded the plain language of Election Code § 255.004(b) (the ‘True Source of Communication’ statute) and misconstrued it to unlawfully require identification of the source of a campaign communication. On its face, the statute does not require identification of the so...
“Where: (1) the trial court, in dismissing the State’s capital murder indictment on the grounds of prosecutorial vindictiveness, also dismissed the ‘instant cause’ with prejudice, effectively precluding the State from reindicting Gabaldon on an untainted murder charge or any lesser-included offen...
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...
1. “The court of appeals employed a heightened standard for probable cause, departing from the flexible standard required by law.” 2. “The court of appeals applied inconsistent standards for probable cause in its analyses of the warrant affidavits for the searches of the appellant’s cell phone d...
denotes a petition filled by SPA