Issues Granted - 1/13/10

On January 13, 2010, the CCA granted discretionary review in the following three cases:

PD-0622-09, PD-0623-09, PD-0624-09, PD-0625-09, & PD-0626-09, Mario Rico Martinez v. State: The CCA granted Martinez's petition for discretionary review with oral argument in this violation of a court order case out of Wichita County on the following issues:

1. Does the legislature’s delegation of authority to the judiciary to create rules of conduct, violation of which are punishable by incarceration, violate the separation of powers doctrine?

2. Is the injunction provision prohibiting Appellant from making “gang signs” and wearing “gang clothing” unconstitutionally vague and overbroad?

Here's a link, link, link, link, & link to the court of appeals case information. Here's a link, link, link, link, & link to the court of appeals unpublished opinions.

PD-1491-09, Wilton Larron Mahaffey v. State: The CCA granted Mahaffey's petition for discretionary review with oral argument in this DWI case out of Henderson County on the following issue:

The Court of Appeals incorrectly decided the sole issue in direct conflict with the Texas Transportation Code and in direct conflict with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals in Texas. The question presented is whether the Court of Appeals improperly ruled that a movement from right to left on a roadway amounts to a "turn" under chapter 545 of the Texas Transportation Code.

Here's a link to the court of appeals case information. Here's a link to the unpublished court of appeals opinion.

PD-0298-09, Sherry Lynn Grimes v. State: The CCA granted the State's petition for discretionary review with oral argument in this capital murder case out of Grimes County on the following issues:

1. The Court of Criminal Appeals should reexamine and abandon the automatic application of the accomplice witness rule as applied to a witness who has been indicted for the same offense as the accused.

2. Does the mere fact that a witness was once indicted for the same crime as Appellee make that witness an accomplice as a matter of law absent an affirmative showing that there was a quid pro quo exchange of a dismissal of the indictment for testimony.

3. In reviewing whether the evidence is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice witness testimony, should the appellate court look for "alternative" explanations to "explain away" inculpatory evidence or should the evidence be viewed in a light most favorable to the jury's implicit finding that the evidence "tends to connect" Appellee to the offense.

The CCA also granted discretionary review on its own motion in the same case on the following issue:

What is the appropriate remedy if a court of appeals finds insufficient evidence to corroborate accomplice witness testimony?

Here's a link to the court of appeals case information. Here's a link to the published court of appeals opinion. And here's a link to the underlying dissenting opinion.