Today's Opinions - 4/29/09

The Court handed down a number of publshed opinions today, but it's kind of a trick because one case had like eight defendants.

AP-75,862, Ex parte Billy George Reedy: The CCA recognized that it's not inherently coercive to get a waiver of habeas corpus relief in exchange for the State not seeking the death penalty. But, they also held that that waiver may not be intelligently or knowingly made regarding issues such as ineffective assistance when those issues are based on facts unknown to the defendant. Click here for a more detailed summary.

PD-0454-07, David Woodall v. State: The CCA held that Woodall failed to preserve error regarding his denial of the right to cross-examine the Intoxilyzer Expert because on only informed the trial court of the questions he wanted to ask, not the information he intended to elicit. This case was combined with eight other cases, but here he defendant failed to preserve error. Click here for a more detailed summary.

PD-0453-07, Terry M. Holmes v. State: The CCA held that Holmes, along with seven other co-defendants, had preserved error on his denial of cross-examination claim by filing a motion detailing the substance of the testimony he intended to elicit. The CCA affirmed the court of appeals. Click here for a more detailed summary.

PD-0455-07, Gabriel J. Williams v. State: The CCA held that Williams, along with seven other co-defendants, had preserved error on his denial of cross-examination claim by filing a motion detailing the substance of the testimony he intended to elicit. The CCA affirmed the court of appeals. Click here for a more detailed summary.

PD-0456-07, Gabriel Contreras Jr. v. State: The CCA held that Contreras, along with seven other co-defendants, had preserved error on his denial of cross-examination claim by filing a motion detailing the substance of the testimony he intended to elicit. The CCA affirmed the court of appeals. Click here for a more detailed summary.

PD-0457-07, April Harlow v. State: The CCA held that Harlow, along with seven other co-defendants, had preserved error on her denial of cross-examination claim by filing a motion detailing the substance of the testimony she intended to elicit. The CCA affirmed the court of appeals. Click here for a more detailed summary.

PD-0458-07, Alfonso R. Rodriguez v. State: The CCA held that Rodriguez, along with seven other co-defendants, had preserved error on his denial of cross-examination claim by filing a motion detailing the substance of the testimony he intended to elicit. The CCA affirmed the court of appeals. Click here for a more detailed summary.

PD-0459-07, Michael Brice v. State: The CCA held that Brice, along with seven other co-defendants, had preserved error on his denial of cross-examination claim by filing a motion detailing the substance of the testimony he intended to elicit. The CCA affirmed the court of appeals. Click here for a more detailed summary.

PD-0460-07, Walter Widener Jr. V. State: The CCA held that Widener, along with seven other co-defendants, had preserved error on his denial of cross-examination claim by filing a motion detailing the substance of the testimony he intended to elicit. The CCA affirmed the court of appeals. Click here for a more detailed summary.

PD-0791-08, Jimmy Lee Simmons v. State: The CCA held that the defendant's letter along with other evidence sufficiently corroborated the accomplice witness testimony in this aggravated robbery. The proper corrobration inquiry is whether the non-accomplice evidence could be seen as inculpating the defendant and not whether the evidence could be seen as rationally consistent with innnocence. Click here for a more detailed summary.

PD-0891-08, Luis Noe Barrios v. State: The CCA held that a jury instruction requiring the jury to acquit a defendant of a greater offense prior to consideration of the lesser-included offense did not prevent the jury from considering the jury charge as a whole. Click here for a more detailed summary.

PD-0984-08, Noel Ronaldo Villarreal v. State: The CCA held that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that Villarreal violated a protective order where he committed an act of "dating violence", but the protective order's definition of "family violence" did not include dating violence. Click here for a more detailed summary.