Oral Arguments - 5/6/09

On May 6, 2009, the Court of Criminal Appeals heard oral argument in the following cases:

PD-0946-08, Ricky Tapps v. State, an unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon case out of Travis County:

Appellant's opening - Viktor Olavson
State's response - Georgette Hogarth
Appellant's rebuttal

Tapps argued that he couldn't be convicted of felon in possession of a firearm because he only had a prior convictin for a state jail felony rather than a real felony. The Austin Court of Appeals held that all the State had to prove for the felon in possession statute was that Tapps was generally a felon and the state jail felony conviction means he's a felon. Here's a link to the underlying opinion. Here's a link to my post when oral argument was granted.

PD-1661-08, PD-1662-08, Eduardo Guerrero v. State, a delivery/possession of a controlled substance case otu of Bexar County:

State's opening - Charles F. Campbell (SPA)
Appellant's response - Michael D. Robbins
State's response

Guerrero was charged with possession of methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and manufacture of methamphetamine all occuring on the same day. The court of appeals held that Guerrero could not be convicted of of all three offenses based on double jeopardy. The State agreed to vacate the simple possession case as a lesser-included, but the court of appeals held that the possesion with intent to deliver should also be vacated as it was all part of the same drug transaction. The State Prosecuting Attorney's Office petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review and this argument followed. Here's a link to the underlying court of criminal appeals case. And here's a link to my post when oral argument was granted, such as it is.

PD-1780-08, Pamela Shareka Langham v. State, a possession of cocaine case out of Taylor County:

Appellant's opening - Stan Brown
State's response - Patricia K. Dyer
Appellant's rebuttal

Police got information that a particular residence was a drug house. They got a search warrant for the residence and found Langham in the residence along with cocaine and several other folks. At trial, the detective testified that a confidential informant had told him the people in the residence were running a crack distribution center. The court of appeals held that these statements were non-testimonial. Here's a link to the underlying opinion. Here's a link to my post when oral argument was granted.