Jurisdictional Anomalies of Texas's Courts of Appeals

There are fourteen intermediate courts of appeals in Texas. The areas they cover are called supreme judicial districts. I've previously discussed the strangeness of the First and Fourteenth Supreme Judicial Districts, which cover the same counties and whose work is divided between them generally by the Harris County District Clerk's office.
Hunt County, Texas is in both the Fifth and Sixth Supreme Judicial Districts. This means that you can appeal from there to either Dallas--Fifth S.J.D.-- or Texarkana-- Sixth.
Gregg, Rusk, Upshur and Wood Counties are Texas counties that are in both the Sixth and Twelfth Supreme Judicial Districts. The latter is in Tyler, the former, Texarkana.
Appeals of denials of the rights of property owners to drill oil and gas wells by the Railroad Commission, as well as other actions involving the government of the State of Texas are almost solely limited to the district courts of Travis County- county seat, Austin. Further appeals from there go to the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, unless the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court equalizes the dockets of the state courts of appeals. This makes the Third Court of Appeals in some ways, a first among equals of the Courts of Appeals.

You Can Only Say You Don't Know If You Really Don't Know

Texas's Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana has held that where the manner and means of committing a crime is known to be one of several possibilities, it is not proper in the indictment to state that the manner and means were unknown to the grand jury.

Victim Rebecca Moulton was found floating in a pond, dead from asphyxia possibly from drowning, strangulation, or suffocation. Her husband’s indictment alleged that he caused her death by

• ·         Manual strangulation,
• ·         Drowning and (meaning “or”)
• ·         Asphyxia by means unknown to the grand jury.

Where the manner and means are not elements of the offense, giving notice that an offense that the manner and means of committing an offense is unknown when they are known, at least as one of a list of possibilities, may prevent the defendant from properly preparing for trial, and the trial evidence may show that the allegation of unknown manner and means to be demonstrably false. This may require a new trial. In this case, it did.

This holding was largely based on Sanchez v. State, PD-0961-07, (Tex. Cr. App. Oct. 6, 2010) (rehearing pending). The Texarkana Court is going to look foolish if the Court of Criminal Appeals recasts its opinion in a major way.

In another issue in this case, an expert said that evidentiary affidavits given by the victim’s friends and family members could be read into the trial record to show the basis of the expert’s opinion under Texas Rule of Evidence 705—that the affidavits were not unfairly prejudicial.

Hat tip to the Texas County and District Attorneys Association who were wise enough to hire the sunny and efficient Kaylene Braden, formerly of the Matagorda County Courthouse in Bay City, to work for them.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished- Enhancement Judgment Not Final on Its Face Occasions Partial Remand

    Texarkana Texas's Sixth Court of Appeals
reversed and remanded the punishment hearing in Cornel G. Williams v. State of Texas because one of the enhancement judgments showed that it had been appealed. Justices Jack Carter (D) and Bailey C. Moseley (R) were the majority. Chief Justice Josh R. Morriss, III (R) dissented. Submitted on February 10, 2010, the Court released its opinion March 31 of that year.

Williams appealed his conviction for possessing more than four grams of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The Longview jury enhanced his punishment to life imprisonment— which in Texas state law is 35 years until the convict's first chance to get parole— because of his prior convictions. The State alleged his priors in the indictment. He pleaded "true" to them. The State introduced, without objection from Williams, certified copies of two prior convictions. The opinion says that Williams argued on appeal that "the State's notice" contained "no allegations regarding the sequence of the convictions" and "no mention of when the offenses occurred or when the convictions became final." The Court held that "the documentary evidence revealed that an appeal had been prosecuted from one of those convictions, yet there was no evidence presented to show that the conviction had become final." The evidence was, therefore, legally insufficient. The Court of Appeals cites Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding) that Williams's plea of "true" and his failure to object to the judgment that did not show on its face that it was final does not waive this error. Rich's sentence had been enhanced even though one of the enhancing judgments had been proved to have been reduced to a misdemeanor. The Court of Appeals does not state unequivocally state that the judgment in Williams's case was not final— I think they would have, if that judgment had not in fact been final. In Rich, the illegality of his sentence was manifest: a misdemeanor cannot enhance a felony sentence, even if the defendant is willing to suffer such an enhancement. In the absence of perfect proof that an enhancement is final, I believe that the defendant's assent that the enhancement is final should conclude the matter under present Texas law.

The two older justices— the ones not likely facing reelection— decided that 4.83 grams of coke shouldn't turn a 180 day sentence into life.