“When four judges have considered whether to properly grant a motion for new trial and two of them have decided that such a motion was properly granted, then that decision cannot be outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. The two-justice majority of the Court of Appeals never explicitly foun...
1. “The lower court erred when it ignored existing case law so that it could create, in a publish opinion, a new waivable-only right to physical presence under Article 33.03 that conflicts with decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals, the lower court, and other courts of appeals.” 2. “The low...
“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...
denotes a petition filled by SPA