Texas Capitol

Search Petitions, Briefs and Summaries

Petition filed by SPA icon denotes a petition filled by SPA

HERNANDEZ, PEDRO, JR.

11/20/2019

1. “The Eleventh Court of Appeals decided an issue that is contrary to a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in that the Appeals Court decided the legal sufficiency in this case in a way that is contrary to the record and it failed to apply the legal authorities to the facts of Petitioner’s...

MORENO, RICKY

11/20/2019

“The trial court excluded evidence of the defendant’s particular circumstances as irrelevant to the objective reasonable person standard for duress. Did the court of appeals err in finding an abuse of discretion by the trial court?”

SANDERS, EX PARTE NATHAN

11/20/2019

“Texas Penal Code section 42.07(a)(7) is a content-based restriction that restricts a real and substantial amount of speech as protected by the First Amendment; speech which invades privacy interests of the listener has never been held by the United States Supreme Court to be a category of unprot...

DAY, JONATHAN

11/06/2019

1. “Can an officer’s attempt to detain or arrest a suspect, which is otherwise lawful, be tainted by an earlier illegality and thereby negate evading’s lawful-arrest-or-detention element, just as evidence is tainted under fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree?”  2. “Will discovery of an arrest warrant nece...

HAMMACK, MICHAEL ANTHONY

11/06/2019

“The Court of Appeals erred by finding that the evidence was legally sufficient to find Appellant guilty of interfering with child custody because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant knowingly violated the express terms of a judgment or order when Appellant was neve...

ORTIZ, ORLANDO

11/06/2019

“When a defendant is charged with ‘assault by occlusion’ pursuant to Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(B), does the denial of occlusion and admission to causing different injuries entitle him to an instruction on simple assault?”

HOLDER, CHRISTOPHER JAMES, PD-1296-16

10/23/2019

1. "The Court of Appeals erred in holding the State's petition to obtain the Appellant's cell phone records set forth the "specific and articulable facts" required by federal law under 18 U.S.C. section 2703(d)." 2. "The Court of Appeals erred in holding the State’s acquisition of Petitioner’s hi...

PENDERGRAFT, JAMES RAY

10/23/2019

1. “Based on these facts, does the Twelfth District Court of Appeals’ decision conflict with Kelly v. State, for granting Counsel’s motion to withdraw and declaring the appeal frivolous, without first satisfying Petitioner’s express request to gain access to the appellate record in order to meani...