Today's Opinions - 3/3/10

Today the CCA handed down published opinions in the following cases:

PD-1205-08, State v. Robert Leahy Powell: The CCA upheld the seizure of two safes that were not described in a search warrant even though the scope of the warrant would have necessarily authorized a search inside the safes for forged checks. While the warrant didn’t specifically list the safes as property to be seized, the safes were described in the warrant affidavit. Judge Womack concurred along with Judges Johnson and Cochran, but declined to join Part II of the majority’s opinion which contained dicta regarding the applicability of the federal exclusionary rule. Judge Price, dissented to take issue with the determination that the affidavit actually contained enough reference to the seized safes to warrant the seizure, and to criticize the majority’s discussion of the federal exclusionary rule in Part II of the opinion. 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-0307-09, Ronald Lee Wilson v. State: The CCA held that a police officer’s use of a fabricated fingerprint report in violation of §37.09 of the Penal Code to persuade a defendant to confess requires the suppression of a suspect’s confession under the Texas exclusionary rule found in Article 38.23. Judge Meyers dissented because he did not think the officer violated §37.09 because the defendant’s confession to the offense meant the report was not really fabricated. Bless his heart. Judge Keasler, joined by Judge Hervey and Presiding Judge Keller, dissented because the Wilson had failed to argue a violation of §37.09 at the trial court, so the error was not properly preserved. Finally, Judge Hervey, joined by Judge Keasler and Presiding Judge Keller, dissented because the officer’s violation of §37.09 did not violate any of Wilson’s personal rights so he had no standing to complain. 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-1780-08, Pamela Shareka Langham v. State: The CCA held that admission of hearsay statements from a confidential informant that a police officer used to get a search warrant violated the Confrontation Clause. Presiding Judge Keller, joined by Judges Keasler and Hervey, dissented because she did not believe the statements provided great, incriminating detail and that the CCA should have performed the harm analysis itself rather than remand the case. Judge Hervey, joined by Judge Keasler and Presiding Judge Keller, also dissented because the out-of-court statements were not “testimonial” because they referred to conduct for which the defendant was never charged. 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-1137-09, Ex parte Levi Alexas King: In light of its recent decision in Ex parte Doster, the CCA dismissed this appeal of a pre-trial writ of habeas corpus because pre-trial habeas is not the appropriate vehicle to consider a denial of a motion to dismiss based upon a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Here’s a link to the court of appeals case information. Here’s a link to the court of appeals opinion. No additional summary will follow.

PD-0245-09 & PD-0246-09, Safety National Casualty Corp v. State: Based on a historical evaluation of Article 44.44 and the Court’s own history, the CCA held that the civil filing fee statutes do not apply to bond-forfeiture cases so the appellant does not have to pay them in bond-forfeiture cases on appeal. Presiding Judge Keller, joined by Judge Johnson, concurred to add that in 1879 the original statute for appealing bond forfeitures did not contemplate filing fees. Judge Meyers also concurred to note the distinction between court rules (which come from an entity that has no revenue generating or taxing authority) and statues (which come from an entity that does). Judge Holcomb, along with Judge Womack, dissented to argue that civil filing fees are appropriate in bond forfeiture appeals. Here’s a link to the court of appeals case information, and here’s another one. Here’s a link to the court of appeals opinion, and here’s a copy of it.