Today's Opinions - 2/24/10

Today the CCA handed down opinions in the following cases:

AP-75,370, Ex parte Charles Dean Hood: The CCA held that Hood should get a new punishment trial because the jury nullification instruction (used prior to Penry II) was erroneous. Moreover, Hood was allowed to bring this claim on his subsequent writ because the recent opinions from the Supreme Court announced new law that he could not have taken advantage of in his initial writs. Judge Keasler dissented to correctly point out that those new Supreme Court cases actually held that the error in Hood's jury instructions violated clearly established law that Hood should've taken advantage of in his first writ. Here's a link to a more detailed summary.

PD-0337-09, Robert Gonzales, Jr. v. State: A unanimous CCA held that the defendant was not entitled to a hearing on his motion for new trial based upon the denial of his day-of-trial motion for continuance. The trial court did not need to have a hearing to develop a record on how the denial harmed the defendant where the record showed the trial court could've properly denied the motion for continuance because trial counsel had the case for eight months before moving (on the day of trial) to have an expert appointed to examine the medical evidence. Oh, and aggravated sexual assault by anal penetration is a different offense from aggravated sexual assault by vaginal penetration for purposes of double jeopardy. Here's a link to the court of appeals case information. Here's a link to the court of appeals opinion (unpublished). Here's a link to a more detailed summary if you're interested.

PD-1111-08, Wesley Charles Joseph v. State: The CCA held that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights under Article 38.22 even though he only signed a card that indicated he understood his rights at the beginning of the interview. Judge Cochran concurred (with Price, Johnson, and Holcomb) to warn police to get an explicit waiver because an implied waiver is hard to prove. Presiding Judge Keller concurred as well to note that the defendant's voluntary engagement in a six-hour interview after indicating he understood his rights is evidence of his waiver of those rights at the outset of the questioning. Here's a link to the court of appeals case information. Here's a link to the court of appeals opinion. Here's a link to a more detailed summary.

PD-1805-08, Joseph Denver Smith v. State: A unanimous CCA held that exposing genitalia and masturbating in front of another person is not inherently reckless, so the State must plead additional facts to demonstrate recklessness when charging a defendant with indecent exposure. [Please do not convey this information to the kids on Jersey Shore.] Here's a link to the court of appeals case information. Here's a link to the court of appeals opinion. Here's a link to a more detailed summary.

PD-0453-07, Terry M. Holmes v. State,
PD-0454-07, David Woodall v. State,
PD-455-07, Gabriel J. Williams v. State,
PD-0457-07, April Harlow v. State,
PD-0458-07, Alfonso R. Rodriguez v. State,
PD-0459-07, Michael Brice v. State,
PD-0460-07, Walter Widener, Jr. v. State: The CCA held that the trial court's refusal to allow defense counsel to cross-examine the State's expert regarding the Intoxilyzer 5000 violated the defendants' rights to present a defense. Moreover, the Court should not say beyond a reasonable doubt that this ruling the the trial court did not contribute to the defendants' decisions to plead guilty. Here's a link to the court of appeals case information in Holmes's, Woodall's, Williams's, Contreras's, Harlow's, Rodriguez's, Brice's, and Widener's cases respectively. Here are links to the court of appeals opinions for Holmes's, Woodall's, Williams's, Contreras's, Harlow's, Rodriguez's, Brice's, and Widener's cases respectively.