Case Summaries

Each week, TDCAA staff members summarize the most important cases from Texas and federal criminal courts and provide insightful commentary on how those cases could impact the criminal justice system as well as a link to the opinions. Find a library of previous Weekly Case Summaries here.

Summaries

December 15, 2023

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Flores v State                                                                                              

No. PD-0562-22                                                                                           12/13/23

Issue:

Can a trial court expand its jurisdiction and hold a hearing on a motion for new trial outside the 75-day plenary period pursuant to the joint order of the Texas Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals (“First Emergency Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster”)?

Holding:

No. The First Emergency Order allowed courts to modify or suspend all deadlines and procedures. The 75-day plenary period is not a procedural operation of the court but rather jurisdictional. Jurisdiction is a systemic requirement, and a trial court cannot expand its jurisdiction by relying on the Emergency Order or a similar order. By not ruling on the defendant’s motion for new trial within the 75-day plenary period, the motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law. Read opinion.

Commentary:

Now that the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals have stopped issuing Emergency Orders under the pandemic, this opinion may seem to be of limited value. Nevertheless, prosecutors still should file this very short opinion away for future use because it emphasizes the importance of a jurisdictional limitation and the inability of courts to ignore such a limitation. In this context, jurisdiction is not based upon a constitutional provision or a statute but is based upon case law construing the appellate rules. The 75-day time period is no less strict, however. After the expiration of that time period, everything that a trial court tries to do with regard to a motion for new trial is void.

Texas Court of Appeals

McBeath v State

No. 07-23-00006-CR                                                                                   12/8/23

Issue:

At sentencing, can a trial court consider evidence other than proof of conviction of an earlier case for which a defendant was granted “judicial clemency” under CCP Art. 42A.701(f)?

Holding:

Yes. A trial court can consider the facts and bad acts underlying a conviction for which a defendant received judicial clemency without impugning the “penalties and disabilities” from which the defendant has been released. Read opinion.

Commentary:

This is an important decision that should be very helpful to prosecutors when dealing with a defendant who has continued to engage in criminal behavior, even after successfully serving probation (community supervision) for a prior offense. The details of that prior offense should be admissible against the defendant, even after he has been granted so-called “judicial clemency,” because of the broad scope of evidence that is admissible at the punishment stage under Article 37.07, §3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This decision is entirely consistent with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ ruling in Davis v. State, 968 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), in which the court held that the details of a prior offense were admissible at the punishment stage, even if the defendant was placed on deferred adjudication probation for that prior offense and successfully served that prior probation.

Texas Attorney General Opinions

No. KP-0453                      12/13/23

Issue:

Does a judge of a multi-county district have authority under Government Code Chapter 74 to appoint different court coordinators for each county of the district?

Conclusion:

A court would likely conclude that Gov’t Code §74.101(a) authorizes the appointment of a single court coordinator per court, even in a multi-county judicial district. A court would likely conclude that, in the context of a multi-county judicial district, only a commissioners court that will fund the court coordinator position may approve the “position and compensation” of a court coordinator referenced in §74.104(b).

Because the question of court coordinator compensation in a multi-county judicial district necessarily involves the issue of apportionment among the counties in the district, a court would likely conclude that §74.104 requires the appointing judge and respective commissioners courts to collaborate in apportioning the cost of a court coordinator’s compensation as part of the overall compensation approval process. Finally, a court would likely conclude that a judge making an appointment of court coordinator staff or support personnel under §74.103 must seek commissioners court approval of the positions under Local Government Code §151.001.

Requested by:

John Greenwood, Lampasas County Attorney

TDCAA is pleased to offer these unique case summaries from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court, the Texas Courts of Appeals and the Texas Attorney General. In addition to the basic summaries, each case will have a link to the full text opinion and will offer exclusive prosecutor commentary explaining how the case may impact you as a prosecutor. The case summaries are for the benefit of prosecutors, their staff members, and members of the law enforcement community. These summaries are NOT a source of legal advice for citizens. The commentaries expressed in these case summaries are not official statements by TDCAA and do not represent the opinions of TDCAA, its staff, or any member of the association. Please email comments, problems, or questions to Joe Hooker.