1. “The Court of Appeals erred when it held that prior possession and use of contraband may be admitted to prove knowledge of contraband and intent to possess contraband under Rules 403 and 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence.” 2. “The Court of Appeals erred when it held that prior possessi...
1. “Did the court of appeals err by failing to recognize municipalities’ authority, granted pursuant to the doctrine of home-rule cities and by Texas Penal Code § 42.12(d), to ban the discharge of firearms?” 2. “Did the lower court err by holding the San Antonio Ordinance should be construed as ...
1. “The trial court’s order correcting its prior judgment was signed while the trial court retained plenary power. Although labeled as a ‘Nunc Pro Tunc Order,’ the court of appeals concluded that the order was merely a modification of the judgment and not an order ‘nunc pro tunc.’ The court of ap...
APPELLANT’S “Whether the First Court of Appeals erred when it misinterpreted Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) and failed to apply Salinas v. State, 523 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) in determining that the summoning witness/mileage fee under Texas Code of Criminal Proce...
1. “The court of appeals erred in determining that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for accident involving injury–failure to stop and render aid.” 2. “The court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s refusal to give jury instruction on mistake of fact.”
“Following this Court’s recent decision in Shortt v. State, when an appellant timely files a notice of appeal to appeal his conviction, must he file an additional notice of appeal to maintain his appeal of the conviction if the trial court later signs an order or judgment permitting ‘shock’ proba...
1. “The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that appellant’s Miller v. Alabama claim was forfeited by inaction.” 2. “The Court of Appeals erred by ruling the age of the defendant at the time of the offense is an affirmative defense for which the defendant bears the burden of proof.” 3. “Even if de...
“These cases were selected to address an issue reserved by this Court in Safety Nat’l Cas. Corp. v. State, 305 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The issue was raised by motion to retax costs and a motion for new trial. There was a contested hearing in which evidence was offered before the trial ...
denotes a petition filled by SPA