Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
EX PARTE BESSIE TEKILA MARTIN
COA02
In Ex parte Martin, the Second Court of Appeals addressed a double jeopardy challenge where a defendant claimed that out-of-county offenses were barred from prosecution because they had been 'taken into account' during a prior sentencing in another county under Texas Penal Code Section 12.45. While the court acknowledged that a valid Section 12.45 agreement bars subsequent prosecution for the admitted conduct, it found the record in this case insufficient to verify which specific offenses were included in the prior plea. Consequently, the court held that a defendant must provide a complete factual record—including the specific list of unadjudicated offenses—to sustain such a claim and remanded the case for further evidentiary development.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family law litigation, a spouse's criminal 'Judgment' is often just the tip of the iceberg; to effectively prove fault or waste of community assets, practitioners must subpoena the full 'plea packet' and the 'Section 12.45 list' to secure a binding judicial confession of the underlying misconduct."
Christopher Michael Green v. The State of Texas
COA05
In Green v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals examined whether a trial court erred by admitting SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) records of an unavailable victim during a criminal punishment phase. The defendant argued that admitting graphic forensic evidence without the victim's testimony was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 because he could not cross-examine the witness. The court analyzed the records' high probative value regarding the defendant's character and pattern of behavior, especially since the forensic evidence was linked to the defendant via DNA. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, ruling that forensic medical records are admissible to show a pattern of conduct even without live testimony from the victim.
Litigation Takeaway
"In high-conflict custody or termination cases, practitioners can leverage forensic 'paper trails'—like SANE or medical records—to prove a history of violence or bad character, even if the victims of those acts are unavailable or unwilling to testify in court."
Westyn Gregory Whetstone v. The State of Texas
COA07
In Whetstone v. State, a defendant was convicted of criminal trespass, but the written judgment erroneously labeled the offense as a Class A misdemeanor involving a 'habitation' despite the State having abandoned that specific allegation at trial. The Seventh Court of Appeals analyzed the record under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b), which allows appellate courts to reform judgments to 'speak the truth' when they have the necessary information to do so. The court held that because the jury charge and sentencing only reflected a Class B offense, the written judgment contained a clerical error that must be reformed to reflect the actual adjudication.
Litigation Takeaway
"Never rely solely on the 'four corners' of a criminal judgment in custody litigation; clerical errors can incorrectly escalate a minor offense into a 'habitation' crime that triggers heightened scrutiny under the Texas Family Code. Always audit the underlying jury charge and trial records to ensure your client's criminal history is accurately represented and seek a reformation or judgment nunc pro tunc if errors are discovered."
In Re Germania Farm Mutual Insurance Association
COA13
In an insurance appraisal dispute, a trial court struck a contractually appointed neutral umpire and unilaterally appointed a replacement based on the homeowner's claim of bias. The evidence of bias was solely a prior order from an unrelated case where another judge had set aside one of the umpire's awards. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion, concluding that 'prior bad acts' in unrelated matters do not meet the high evidentiary bar for 'evident partiality.' The court emphasized that specific evidence of bias in the current proceeding is required and that trial courts cannot ignore contractually mandated selection processes when appointing replacements.
Litigation Takeaway
"Parties cannot disqualify a court-appointed professional—such as a custody evaluator or receiver—based on vague reputations or prior adverse rulings in unrelated cases; disqualification requires specific, admissible proof of bias or partiality within the current litigation."
C. Q. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
The Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate a mother’s parental rights following allegations of drug use and child neglect. While the mother demonstrated significant recent progress, including stable housing and numerous negative urinalyses, she continued to test positive for cocaine in hair follicle tests. Additionally, her live-in fiancé refused to submit to drug testing. The Court of Appeals analyzed the conflicting forensic evidence and the mother's choice of partners under the "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard. The court held that the trial court was entitled to credit the hair follicle results over other tests and that the presence of an untested partner constituted endangering conduct. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the termination of her parental rights.
Litigation Takeaway
"In termination proceedings, hair follicle tests are often treated as the 'gold standard' and can outweigh clean urinalyses or nail tests. Furthermore, a parent is responsible for the safety of their home environment; a romantic partner’s refusal to submit to drug testing can be legally imputed to the parent as a failure to protect the child from endangerment."
In the Interest of M.O.S., a Child
COA04
This case centered on whether an oral statement by a trial judge at the end of a modification hearing constituted a final "rendition" of judgment. In a protracted custody battle, the trial court announced it would keep existing orders but scheduled a status conference for three months later to see if further changes were necessary. Ten months later, the mother attempted to introduce evidence of events that occurred during that delay, arguing the court's refusal to hear this "gap" evidence violated her due process. The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Family Code § 101.026 and recent Supreme Court precedent, concluding that because the trial judge's oral remarks expressed a lack of finality and contemplated future modifications, no rendition occurred until the written order was signed. Consequently, the trial court acted within its discretion in finalizing the order based on the original trial record.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not assume an oral ruling is final if the judge schedules a "status conference" or "review hearing" to see how the child is doing. Unless the judge expresses a clear, present intent to fully and finally resolve all issues, the case remains in "rendition limbo," which can affect the evidentiary record and the timeline for future modifications."
In re E.L.S.
COA12
A juvenile, E.L.S., appealed a trial court order transferring him from the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to complete a thirty-year murder sentence. Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous and moved to withdraw. The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed the transfer, citing the juvenile's extensive behavioral incidents and psychological evaluations. However, the court denied the motion to withdraw, holding that under Texas Family Code § 56.01 and the doctrine established in In re P.M., the statutory right to counsel in juvenile proceedings extends through the filing of a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas juvenile delinquency cases, appointed counsel's duty of representation does not terminate upon the filing of an Anders brief; the 'P.M. Rule' applies, requiring counsel to assist the client through the discretionary review phase at the Texas Supreme Court if the client chooses to proceed."
In the matter of J.C., a juvenile
COA04
A juvenile, J.C., appealed his adjudication for aggravated robbery and assault, arguing that the appellate court should apply a 'factual sufficiency' standard of review to his case—a standard used in certain civil matters that allows the court to weigh evidence. The Fourth Court of Appeals rejected this argument, reaffirming that juvenile delinquency proceedings are 'quasi-criminal' and subject only to the strict 'legal sufficiency' standard used in adult criminal cases. The court held that as long as any rational jury could have found the defendant guilty based on the evidence viewed in favor of the verdict (such as the victim's identification and fingerprint evidence found in this case), the adjudication must be upheld.
Litigation Takeaway
"Appealing a juvenile delinquency verdict is significantly harder than appealing a standard family law order because courts will not re-weigh the evidence. Because these cases follow criminal appellate standards, you cannot win by simply arguing the jury made the wrong choice between conflicting stories; you must prove that there was legally 'no evidence' to support the conviction."
Joey Hernandez v. Dulce Estrella Casas
COA04
In Hernandez v. Casas, a father attempted to use a direct appeal to challenge both a trial court's order revoking his suspended jail sentence and the accuracy of the underlying child support debt. The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed the jurisdictional limits of enforcement orders, distinguishing between punitive measures (contempt) and remedial measures (money judgments). The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the contempt finding or the revocation order through a direct appeal, as those must be challenged via extraordinary writs like habeas corpus or mandamus. Additionally, the court ruled that while the money judgment for child support arrears was appealable, the deadline to file was triggered by the original 2023 enforcement order, making the father's 2025 appeal more than two years too late.
Litigation Takeaway
"Timing is critical in child support enforcement cases. If a court signs an order calculating your total debt (arrearages), you must appeal that specific dollar amount immediately—within 30 days of the initial order—even if your jail time is suspended. You cannot wait until you are actually sent to jail years later to challenge the original "math" used to calculate the debt. Additionally, jail-related orders cannot be challenged through a standard appeal; they require specific, high-level legal filings called "extraordinary writs.""
William Delawrence Lewis v. The State of Texas
COA01
In Lewis, the First Court of Appeals considered whether evidence was legally sufficient to support a conviction for failure to stop and render aid when the defendant claimed he never collided with the crashed vehicle. Witnesses and reconstruction evidence showed Lewis drove a high-performance car at extreme speeds while “pacing” another car in apparent competitive driving for more than a mile; the other car then lost control, crashed, and caused a death and serious injury, and Lewis did not stop. Applying Tex. Transp. Code §§ 550.021 and 550.023 and precedent holding that “involved” is broader than “collision,” the court focused on whether Lewis’s conduct contributed to the accident. The court held that even without definitive proof of physical contact, a rational jury could find Lewis was “involved” because his high-speed, side-by-side driving was a contributing factor in the sequence of events, and credibility conflicts about contact were for the jury. The conviction was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas, you don’t always need proof of an actual impact to show someone was “involved” in a dangerous incident—participation in high-risk, competitive driving can be enough. In custody and divorce cases, that makes it easier to frame reckless behavior (and related criminal exposure) as endangering conduct for best-interest restrictions and as fault/waste considerations in a “just and right” property division."