PD-0250-09 & PD-0251-09, Claude Wayne Chadwick v. State: The CCA granted Chadwick's petition for discretionary review without oral argument in these assault and attempting to take a weapon from a peace officer cases out of Tom Green County on the following issues:
The federal right to self-representation requires that a defendant who is competent to be tried for a crime be permitted to proceed pro se if that is the defendant's choice. The Court of Appeals erred in effectively holding that Indiana v. Edwards overruled Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) and its progeny; and in holding that a finding that Mr. Chadwick was not competent to represent himself could be inferred from the record in the absence of any findings by the trial court in that regard and in the absence of any evidence in the record to support those implied findings.Here's a link to the underlying court of appeals case info and opinion. Click here for a summary of the underlying case.
PD-0499-09 & PD-0500-09, Stephen Bernard Jones v. State: The CCA granted the State's petition for discretionary review with oral argument in this false statement to obtain property or credit case out of Tarrant County on the following issues:
1. The court of appeals erred in holding that a double-jeopardy violation occurred when Appellant was convicted and punished for each distinct material false or misleading statement he made in each loan application at issue because each such statement constituted an allowable unit of prosecution under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.32 given that each statement related to separate matters and was sufficient standing alone to cause the granting of credit in an amount of more than $200,0002.Here's a link to the underlying court of appeals case info and opinion. Click here for a summary of the underlying case.
2. The court of appeals' holding that the gravamen of the offense of false statement to obtain property or credit is the property or credit sought or obtained pursuant to the false or misleading statement or statements conflicts with the plain language of Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.32 defining the offense and is, therefore, contrary to the principles of statutory construction.
3. The court of appeals' holding that the gravamen of the offense of false statement to obtain property or credit is the property or credit sought or obtained pursuant to the false or misleading statement or statements conflicts with the decision in Cheney v. State, 755 S.W.2d 123 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), stating that the gravamen of the offense is the act of making such a statement and that the offense is complete once the written, deceptive statement relative to obtaining property or credit is made.
4. The court of appeals erred in analogizing the offense of false statement to obtain property or credit, which addresses deceptive conduct, and the offense of felony theft, which focuses on the acquisition of property, to determine the allowable unit of prosecution under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.32 for false statement to obtain property or credit.
5.By holding that the allowable unit of prosecution for false statement to obtain property or credit is the property or credit sought or obtained pursuant to the false or misleading statement or statements rather than each material false or misleading statement made to obtain property or credit, the court of appeals has judicially mandated aggregation of distinct offenses committed under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.32 and denied the State discretion in matters of aggregation.
PD-0873-09, State v. Matthew Ryan Dobbs: The CCA granted the State's petition for discretionary review with oral argument in this Collin County theft case on the following issue:
Supreme Court precedent allows the seizure of an item in plain view when it is immediately apparent the item is evidence without any further search of the object. But in White v. State, this Court held that an item in plain view may only be seized when its evidentiary nature is apparent without any further investigation. Should White be overruled because it is contrary to binding Fourth Amendment precedent of the Supreme Court?Here's a link to the underlying court of appeals case info and opinion. Click here for a summary of the underlying case.
PD-0914-09, Troy A. Bowley v. State: The CCA granted the State's petition for discretionary review with oral argument in this DWI case out of Lubbock County on the following issues:
1. Is a defendant immune from impeachment when he opens the door by basing his entire defense around the implicit representation that he always pleads guilty when he is guilty?Here's the underlying court of appeals case info and opinion.. Click here for a summary of the underlying case.
2. Is questioning the defendant's underlying motives for refusing to accept a plea offer error in all situations, no matter what the defendant says or does through his own testimony?
3. Was the court of appeals correct in essentially finding harm per se based solely on a public policy analysis without any meaningful harm analysis?
