The First Court erred by creating a new Marin Category 1 prohibition and holding, in direct contradiction to Speth, that a defendant can complain for the first time on appeal about payments ordered as conditions of community supervision.
“The court of appeals erred in its interpretation of Tex. Pen. Code 39.06(d) when it basically eliminated the meaning of ‘prohibited from disclosure’ as written in the code and replaced it with a vague ‘information that is confidential’ standard.”
“Does the filing of an untimely election for jury punishment and defense counsel’s claim—rejected by the trial court—that his client desired jury punishment at some point satisfy an appellant’s burden under Swinney v. State, 663 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022), to show a reasonable probability t...
1. “The Fourteenth Court’s opinion is based on false statements of the record.” 2. “The Fourteenth Court erred by affirming the trial court on a theory of law not applicable to the case. The Fourteenth Court affirmed on a legal theory that was not litigated below because the appellee had disclai...
“A court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by the State of an order of deferred disposition.”
“Can the Court of Appeals recalculate court costs on their own without remanding the case to the trial court for an ability-to-pay inquiry?”
“Did the Appeals court incorrectly interpret Martin v. State when it determined that the requirement of “continuous association” in a street gang is satisfied by the underlying crime and no additional or prior crime is required for the charge of Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity?”
“When two officers both testify about one joint pursuit of an individual after that individual evaded them in a motor vehicle, is there no double jeopardy violation when the individual is charged and convicted of evading from both officers simply because the individual gives a different account o...
denotes a petition filled by SPA