Opinion Library

State v. Brady

COA09

In State v. Brady, a stepfather accused of child abuse voluntarily provided a video-recorded confession at a police station. Although he signed a form acknowledging his rights, he refused to sign the waiver and later expressed a desire to stop talking; however, the detective continued the 'conversational' interview. The trial court suppressed the later portion of the confession, but the Ninth Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court analyzed the 'custody' status, determining that because the defendant was free to leave and was not physically restrained, Miranda protections—including the right to terminate questioning—did not apply. Furthermore, the court held the statement was voluntary because there was no evidence of official coercion or overreaching that overbore the defendant's will.

Litigation Takeaway

"In noncustodial settings, the right to 'stop talking' is not legally protected the same way it is under arrest; statements made after a request to terminate an interview can remain fully admissible. For family law clients facing abuse allegations, 'cooperating' with law enforcement without counsel can lead to case-ending confessions that are admissible in both criminal trials and custody proceedings."

General trial issues

State v. Perez

COA08

The State appealed the dismissal of a misdemeanor indictment after a county court at law found it lacked jurisdiction over the case. The conflict centered on a 'blanket' transfer order from a district court that referred to an 'Exhibit A' containing the specific defendants' names, which was missing from the court file at the time of the jurisdictional hearing. The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, analyzing the 'presumption of regularity' doctrine and holding that a court fails to acquire subject-matter jurisdiction if the transfer order is not specific to the case or relies on extrinsic documents not present in the record. Without a specific link between the order and the defendant, the transfer was legally ineffective.

Litigation Takeaway

"Jurisdiction is not assumed just because a file moves from one court to another; it must be legally invoked. Family law practitioners should perform a 'file audit' on any transferred case—especially those moved via local standing orders—to ensure the transfer order specifically identifies the party and cause number. If the transfer paperwork is missing or generic, every subsequent order, including final decrees and custody rulings, may be void and subject to a collateral attack."

Property Division

Clowdus v. State

COA12

In Clowdus v. State, the defendant appealed his murder conviction under the 'law of parties,' arguing that his participation in hiding the victim's body and destroying evidence after the homicide was insufficient to prove he intended to assist in the murder itself. The Twelfth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Penal Code §§ 7.01 and 7.02, noting that while mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient, a jury may consider conduct occurring before, during, and after an offense to infer a coordinated intent. The court held that the defendant’s elaborate 'cleanup' operation—which included burying the victim in concrete, dismantling a vehicle, and creating a false written narrative—demonstrated a 'guilty mind' and provided legally sufficient evidence of his intent to promote or assist the crime.

Litigation Takeaway

"Post-incident 'cleanup' activities, such as deleting digital evidence or hiding assets, are not isolated acts; they serve as a window into a party's prior intent. In family litigation, this logic can be used to prove civil conspiracy or 'fraud on the community,' and a party's private refusal to answer questions can be leveraged into a powerful adverse inference."

General trial issues

State v. Rivas

COA08

The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an indictment in a case where a district court attempted to transfer a batch of misdemeanor cases to a county court at law but failed to attach the specific list of cases (Exhibit A) to the transfer order. The court analyzed whether clerical receipt of the indictment was sufficient to vest jurisdiction, ultimately determining that jurisdiction is a judicial act requiring strict technical compliance. Because the transfer order did not identify the specific case within its 'four corners' or through a valid attachment, the court held that the county court's jurisdiction was never properly invoked, rendering the proceedings a nullity.

Litigation Takeaway

"Jurisdictional transfers are judicial acts, not mere administrative formalities; always audit 'batch' transfer orders to ensure your specific cause number is included in the attachments, as a 'ghost' transfer missing its identifying exhibit can render subsequent orders void."

General trial issues

State v. Presbi

COA08

In State v. Presbi, the Eighth Court of Appeals addressed whether a county court at law acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over a case transferred from a district court when the transfer order was missing a referenced exhibit listing the cases to be moved. The court analyzed Article 21.26 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and jurisdictional principles, determining that jurisdiction is derivative and must be affirmatively invoked by a complete written order. Because the 'Exhibit A' identifying the defendant's case was never attached or filed, the court held that the transfer was ineffective and the county court's jurisdiction was never established, rendering its subsequent actions void and justifying the dismissal of the indictment.

Litigation Takeaway

"Always audit the clerk's file following a case transfer to ensure the transfer order is facially complete; if a referenced schedule or exhibit is missing, the receiving court lacks jurisdiction, making any resulting orders void and vulnerable to being overturned years later."

State v. Gonzalez

COA08

In State v. Gonzalez, a district court attempted to transfer a misdemeanor indictment to a county court at law but failed to attach 'Exhibit A,' a document intended to list the specific cases being transferred. Additionally, the indictment lacked a district court file stamp. The Eighth Court of Appeals analyzed whether these omissions were mere procedural errors or fatal jurisdictional defects. The court held that the transfer process under Article 21.26 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is the 'jurisdictional bridge' required for a county court to hear a case originating from a grand jury. Because the order failed to specifically identify the case and there was no evidence it was ever properly filed in the district court, jurisdiction was never invoked, and the dismissal of the indictment was affirmed.

Litigation Takeaway

"Always perform a 'jurisdictional audit' of a client's or opponent's criminal history; if a misdemeanor indictment was transferred from a district court without a specific, attached exhibit naming the case, the resulting conviction may be void and subject to a collateral attack in family court."

Appeal and Mandamus

In The Interest of S.A.M. and C.J.M., Children

COA05

In a child custody appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed the case after the appellant failed to comply with mandatory privacy and briefing rules. The court initially struck the appellant's brief because it contained 'sensitive data'—specifically the full names and birthdates of minor children—in violation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9. Although the court granted the appellant a deadline to file a corrected, redacted brief, the appellant failed to respond or cure the defects. The court held that under Rule 38.9(a), dismissal was the proper sanction, emphasizing that protecting a minor's identity is a jurisdictional necessity that outweighs the court's usual patience for procedural errors.

Litigation Takeaway

"Protecting the privacy of children is a non-negotiable requirement in Texas family law appeals. Failing to redact sensitive information or ignoring a court's order to fix briefing errors can result in your appeal being dismissed before its merits are ever even considered."

Barreramaya v. State

COA05

In Barreramaya v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed an indecent assault conviction where the defendant argued the evidence was insufficient because the victim 'froze' instead of physically resisting. The court analyzed the 'freeze' response as a valid trauma reaction that does not imply consent, particularly in situations involving power imbalances. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the victim's testimony was legally sufficient to prove lack of consent. Additionally, the court ruled that the defendant's challenges to the 'trauma-informed' expert testimony were waived because he failed to make timely, specific objections during the trial.

Litigation Takeaway

"In cases involving family violence or sexual coercion, a victim's failure to physically resist (the 'freeze' response) does not prove consent. Furthermore, you must 'object or waive'; if a party fails to challenge the qualifications or scope of trauma-informed expert testimony during the trial, they cannot challenge its admissibility on appeal."

Lopezmejia v. State

COA05

After Jaime Lopezmejia was involved in a severe car accident, police arrested him without a warrant for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Lopezmejia moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the arrest was illegal because police had time to get a warrant and no emergency ('exigency') existed. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 14.03(a)(1), a warrantless arrest for a 'breach of the peace' at a suspicious place—such as a fresh accident scene where the driver shows signs of impairment—is valid even without proof of exigent circumstances.

Litigation Takeaway

"Texas courts have lowered the bar for validating warrantless DWI arrests at accident scenes by removing the 'exigency' requirement. For family law cases, this means that highly damaging evidence of a parent’s substance abuse or endangerment is much more likely to be admitted in court, regardless of whether the police obtained a warrant before the arrest."

Appeal and Mandamus

IN RE TATIANA GUNN

COA05

In a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR), the Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from trial court actions. The Dallas Court of Appeals denied the petition and struck the filing because it failed to comply with fundamental procedural rules. Specifically, the Relator provided an unsworn and uncertified record, omitted the mandatory Rule 52.3(j) certification, and failed to redact sensitive information—such as social security numbers and the names of minors—in violation of privacy rules. The court held that strict compliance with appellate rules is required to obtain mandamus relief, and the failure to protect sensitive data warrants striking the petition entirely.

Litigation Takeaway

"Procedural perfection is a prerequisite for appellate relief; even a strong legal argument will be rejected if the record is not properly authenticated or if sensitive personal data is left unredacted."