“The opinion of the court of appeals is in conflict with opinions of this Court holding there must be evidence of dangerous or reckless operation of a vehicle to support a finding it was used as a deadly weapon and the occurrence of a collision or consumption of alcohol do not establish those ele...
1. “The Thirteenth Court of Appeals erred in suggesting that the sustaining of a Franks motion and the purging of false statements from a search warrant affidavit triggers a heightened legal standard of ‘clear’ probable cause with regard to the remaining allegations in the affidavit.” 2. “The ...
Does Doan apply when a defendant enters a plea of “true” to new criminal offenses in a motion to proceed or probation revocation and does the true plea legally bind the defendant guilty in the new criminal offenses?
1. “Is Tex. Penal Code § 21.16(b) a content-based restriction on speech that is subject to strict scrutiny?” 2. “May a court of appeals find a statute unconstitutional based on a manner and means that was not charged?” 3. “Is Tex. Penal Code § 21.16(b) facially constitutional?”
1. “The Court of Appeals erred when it held that Government Code section 551.143 applies to conduct rather than speech and therefore is not subject to strict scrutiny.” 2. “The Court of Appeals erred when it held that Government Code section 551.143 is not unconstitutionally overbroad.” 3. The ...
1. "Whether the court of appeals properly determined that the postconviction DNA testing results established a reasonable probability that the appellant would not have been convicted had they been available at the time of trial?" 2. "Whether the court of appeals gave proper deference to the tri...
1. “Is ‘possession with intent to deliver’ a predicate offense for engaging in organized criminal activity because it falls within ‘unlawful manufacture, delivery . . . of a controlled substance’ which is one of EOCA’s enumerated predicate offenses?” 2. "Can an EOCA conviction predicated on an ...
1. “The court of appeals erred in holding that § 551.143 does not violate the First Amendment.” 2. “The court of appeals erred in holding that § 551.143 is not void for vagueness.” 3. “The court of appeals erred in failing to address claims raised by Riley that were material to its disposition ...
denotes a petition filled by SPA