Opinion Library

In the Estate of Thomas Doniver Fugler, Jr., Deceased

COA06

In a probate proceeding, non-party stepdaughter Christy Lynne Powell filed a "Notice of Possible Fraud and Concealment." A party to the case moved to strike the filing and requested sanctions, which the trial court granted, finding the filing groundless and brought in bad faith. Powell attempted to appeal the $750 sanction. The Sixth Court of Appeals analyzed whether a non-party possesses appellate standing and whether such a sanctions order constitutes a final, appealable judgment under the probate exception. The court held that because Powell never formally intervened, she remained a non-party without standing to appeal, and she failed to demonstrate that the order qualified as a final judgment on a discrete issue. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Litigation Takeaway

"Non-parties such as stepchildren or meddling relatives who interfere in litigation with unauthorized filings risk immediate, unappealable sanctions. Because non-parties generally lack appellate standing, a trial court's order for sanctions under Rule 13 or Chapter 10 provides a powerful and final deterrent against "shadow litigants" in high-conflict family law or probate disputes."

Evidence

Kappler v. State

COA14

Kappler appealed a felony DWI conviction, claiming the evidence was insufficient because of a three-hour delay between the crash and her blood draw, alongside potential lab contamination from a gas leak. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the state's "stacked proof," which included civilian observations of her unsteady gait, officer notes on slurred speech and field sobriety test failures, and a 0.102 BAC result. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a rational jury could find intoxication under both impairment and per se theories, and that technical challenges to testing reliability generally go to the weight of the evidence rather than its legal sufficiency.

Litigation Takeaway

"When alleging alcohol impairment in custody or divorce proceedings, build a "mosaic of evidence" by combining behavioral observations, inconsistent statements, and physical clues with chemical testing; this layered approach helps defeat "delay" or "technicality" defenses that attempt to isolate and discredit a single piece of evidence."

Williams-James v. James

COA03

In Williams-James v. James, the appellant challenged the accuracy of the reporter’s record, claiming it was incomplete and that certain exhibits were improperly included or omitted. The Third Court of Appeals analyzed the dispute under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6, which requires a trial court to resolve record inaccuracies that the parties cannot agree upon. The court held that it could not adjudicate these factual disputes in the first instance and ordered the appeal abated and remanded to the trial court for a formal hearing to settle the record.

Litigation Takeaway

"The integrity of the trial record is the foundation of any appeal; if you discover the reporter's record is inaccurate or incomplete after it has been filed, you must file a formal motion to abate the appeal so the trial court can settle the dispute through a hearing."

Family Violence & Protective Orders

Bess v. State

COA01

Kendrick Bess appealed his conviction for aggravated assault of a family member, arguing that the trial judge’s active questioning and summarization of witness testimony violated his due process right to a neutral and detached judge. The State contended the appeal was procedurally defective because it was 'multifarious'—bundling multiple legal theories into a single point of error. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the 'interest of justice' exception, determining that it could review multifarious issues if the underlying complaint is discernable with reasonable certainty. On the merits, the court held that trial judges are presumed neutral and that actions taken to manage the courtroom or clarify facts do not constitute bias unless they reveal high-degree favoritism or antagonism. The court ultimately found the judge’s interventions were administrative in nature and affirmed the conviction.

Litigation Takeaway

"To challenge a trial judge's perceived bias on appeal, you must build a record of conduct that transcends mere 'courtroom management'; however, even if your appellate brief is technically multifarious, the 'interest of justice' standard may save the issue if the alleged error is clearly identifiable."

Evidence

Riley v. State

COA13

In Riley v. State, an ex-husband was convicted of "interception" under the Texas wiretap statute for accessing his ex-wife's stored voicemails using a known passcode without her consent. On appeal, the defendant argued that an "interception" can only occur if the communication is captured contemporaneously during transmission, rather than after it has been stored. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals rejected this narrow construction, analyzing Texas Penal Code § 16.02 and concluding that the statute does not require contemporaneous acquisition. The court held that unauthorized access to stored electronic or wire communications, including voicemails, constitutes a criminal interception.

Litigation Takeaway

""Snooping" into an ex-spouse's digital life is more than a credibility issue—it is a potential felony. Accessing stored voicemails or accounts without permission constitutes criminal "interception" in Texas, providing family law litigants with powerful leverage to secure protective orders, exclusive use of devices, and evidence of coercive control."

Child Custody

In re Steven Broomfield and Lisa Broomfield

COA06

Relators moved a child to Smith County in violation of a geographic restriction issued in a Panola County SAPCR order. After six months, they moved for a mandatory venue transfer to Smith County under Texas Family Code Section 155.201. The court analyzed whether a county where residency is established via a violation of a court order constitutes a 'proper county' for transfer. The court held that the mandatory transfer provision is not triggered by unauthorized residency, and the trial court of continuing exclusive jurisdiction retains authority to deny the transfer and enforce its orders through contempt.

Litigation Takeaway

"Violating a geographic restriction to establish residency in a new county will not trigger a mandatory venue transfer; a court will not reward 'venue shopping' or 'self-help' that occurs in direct defiance of a standing court order."

Evidence

In re the Commitment of Rufino Coronado

COA05

The State sought the civil commitment of Rufino Coronado as a sexually violent predator. At trial, the State's expert psychologist testified that Coronado had a behavioral abnormality, basing her opinion in part on a prior evaluation conducted by a non-testifying psychologist. Coronado objected, arguing the prior evaluator's findings were inadmissible hearsay. The Dallas Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rules of Evidence 703 and 705, which permit experts to rely on and disclose inadmissible facts or data if they are of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the specific field. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony because the expert performed her own independent evaluation and used the prior report as a standard clinical "building block" rather than offering the report itself as substantive evidence.

Litigation Takeaway

"To introduce influential third-party data or prior evaluations without calling the original source, have your testifying expert integrate those materials into their own independent assessment. By establishing that such records are 'reasonably relied upon' in the expert's field under TRE 703, you can disclose the basis of the opinion to the factfinder, though you should be prepared for a Rule 705(d) limiting instruction to prevent the hearsay from being treated as substantive truth."

In Re Gregory Lynn Allison

COA06

In In re Gregory Lynn Allison, a relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to rule on motions filed less than three weeks earlier. The relator failed to provide a certified or sworn record, submitting only handwritten copies of his motions. The Sixth Court of Appeals analyzed whether a nineteen-day delay constituted an "unreasonable" period of time for a court to rule and whether the relator's pro se status excused procedural deficiencies under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court held that a delay of less than three weeks is insufficient to establish a failure to perform a ministerial duty and denied the petition, noting that strict compliance with record requirements (TRAP 52.3 and 52.7) is mandatory regardless of a party's indigency.

Litigation Takeaway

"Patience and procedural precision are mandatory for mandamus relief; a three-week delay in a trial court's ruling is legally insufficient to justify appellate intervention, and failure to provide a certified or sworn record will result in summary denial."

Family Violence & Protective Orders

Magdaleno-Garcia v. State

COA07

The Appellant challenged twenty-five convictions for sexual assault and prohibited sexual conduct, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient because the victims provided generalized testimony about a high volume of abuse—hundreds of instances over two years—rather than identifying specific dates for each individual count. The Seventh Court of Appeals analyzed the conflict by distinguishing between evidentiary sufficiency and jury unanimity requirements. The court applied a 'mathematical' approach, determining that if the described frequency (e.g., 'once or twice a week') within a specific timeframe establishes that the conduct occurred at least as many times as there are counts, the evidence is legally sufficient. The court held that the inability to distinguish which specific act supports which specific count is a jury charge issue, not a sufficiency issue, and affirmed the convictions.

Litigation Takeaway

"To establish a history of family violence or abuse, you do not need to prove the exact date of every incident; establishing a 'mathematical' pattern through a clear start date, end date, and consistent frequency is legally sufficient to support multiple findings of fact."

March 13, 2026

In re Christopher Vickers

COA13

Christopher Vickers petitioned for a writ of mandamus to overturn a trial court’s order modifying child conservatorship and the right to designate primary residence, claiming he received no notice of the proceedings. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the petition under the established mandamus standard, which requires the relator to prove both a clear abuse of discretion and the lack of an adequate remedy by ordinary appeal. The court held that Vickers failed to provide an appellate record sufficient to support his claims or demonstrate why a standard appeal would be an inadequate remedy, ultimately denying the petition and lifting a previously imposed stay.

Litigation Takeaway

"Alleging a lack of notice or an abuse of discretion is insufficient to secure mandamus relief in a custody dispute; the relator must provide a comprehensive, authenticated record and specifically prove that the legal error cannot be corrected through a standard post-judgment appeal."