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 impro...
“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...
“Did the Fourth Court of Appeals misapply the Brooks/Jackson standard for determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence by improperly reweighing the evidence and reassigning veracity in an erroneous attempt to follow the U.S. v. Dost factors?”
In concluding that Appellant’s convictions for injury to a child causing serious bodily injury and injury to a child causing serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury violated double jeopardy, did the court of appeals erroneously focus on the transaction rather than the result?
denotes a petition filled by SPA