Texas Courts of Appeals
Bradshaw v. State
No. 10-22-00355-CR 8/2/23
Issue:
Did the court err in assessing the court costs at the time of conviction instead of at the time the offense was committed?
Holding:
No. The law governing court costs at the time the defendant committed the offense required court costs to be assessed under the law at the time of conviction. Effective Jan. 1, 2020, the Texas Legislature overhauled the criminal court cost system. The effective date language on the bill (Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, §5.01 (SB 346)) stated that “[a]n offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.” Therefore, the Court concluded that Gov’t Code §51.608 applies to the defendant’s 2019 offense and requires court costs to be based on the law in effect on the date of conviction, rather than on the date of the proceeding. Read opinion.
Dissent(Gray, C.J.):
“Assessment of criminal court costs is already a gnarly issue, and the Court’s holding is like throwing a handful of sewing machine parts onto a table where a double barrel shotgun is disassembled and then trying to figure out how all the pieces will go back together. They will not. I would modify the trial court’s judgment as agreed by the parties and affirm the judgment as modified.” Read dissent.
Commentary:
As urged by Justice Gray in his dissenting opinion, the Court of Criminal Appeals may wish to review this case. In citing to Gov’t Code §51.608, the majority opinion has found an Escher-like conflict in the court cost statutory scheme that would appear to defy logical resolution. In the grand scheme of things, as time passes, it will not have any lasting effect. But if you want your brain to hurt, read the opinion.
State v. Del Campo-Chavez
No. 04-22-00737-CR 8/2/23
Issue:
Does the trial court have jurisdiction over the merits of a defendant’s application for habeas corpus relief if it does not first explicitly issue a writ?
Holding:
Yes. The court held that there is no jurisdictional requirement for a trial court to explicitly issue a writ before ruling on the merits of a defendant’s request for habeas corpus relief. Read opinion.
Commentary:
A little research will reveal that there are decisions out there in which a trial (habeas) court will refuse to issue a writ, the defendant will attempt to appeal, and the appeal will get dismissed because the trial (habeas) court did not issue the writ. That is not what happened in this case. What happened in this case is that the trial (habeas) court conducted an actual hearing on the merits. When that happens, it technically does not matter that the trial (habeas) court did not issue the writ because the holding of the hearing essentially constitutes a kind of implied issuance of the writ. This is a very short opinion with very little analysis, so do not feel the need to peruse it carefully. The bottom line is that—on the merits—the court followed its prior equal protection decision in Ex parte Aparicio. If that decision gets reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeals, this decision likely will get reviewed, but probably not on the issuance-of-the-writ question.
Olmos v. State
No. 14-21-00461-CR 8/8/23
Issue:
Did the court err in refusing to include a self-defense instruction in the jury charge when the defendant did not testify in his trial for aggravated assault that resulted in the victim’s death?
Holding:
No. Although a self-defense theory can be sufficient when raised by a non-testifying witness, the only evidence in this case was that the victim was found with his zipper down, and one officer theorized that “the death occurred in defense of an unwanted sexual advance.” The Court concluded that though “the zipper might provide some circumstantial evidence, without more, it is not demonstrative of sexually aggressive conduct” by the victim that could reasonably have led the defendant to feel a need to defend himself. Read opinion.
Dissent (Spain, J.):
“This aggravated assault case is about the gay panic defense. The State knew it and directly confronted it at trial. … Unfortunately, the State and the majority have reframed the issues raised in appellant’s brief, restating them in a manner that downplays appellant’s use of the gay panic defense. I see no reason to join the majority in doing that. The defense strategy should be recognized for what it is”. Read Dissent.
Commentary:
This is a rather straightforward case in which the defendant did not testify and in which the defendant gave a statement in which he stated that he could not remember anything. Anything in support of a self-defense claim was speculative. There simply was no evidence that the victim had engaged in any unlawful conduct that would give rise to a self-defense claim. The majority (and the trial court) had no choice but to reject the defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a jury charge on self-defense.
Texas Attorney General Opinion
No. AC-0002 8/8/23
Issue:
Which magistrates have authority to deny bail following a designation under Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 17.027(a)(1) that a defendant on bail for a prior felony has committed another felony offense?
Conclusion:
“[A] court designated in writing pursuant to article 17.027(a)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set bail for a defendant charged with committing a felony while on bail for a prior offense committed in the same county is not authorized to deny bail unless the designated court is a district court, as only a district judge may deny bail under these circumstances pursuant to article I, section 11a of the Texas Constitution.” Read opinion.