Court Filings

The Court of Appeals affirmed Reynaldo Antonio Sanchez’s conviction and 40-year sentence for continuous sexual abuse of a young child. Sanchez argued he was denied a speedy trial and that the trial court erred by admitting portions of a medical examiner’s report and testimony that relied on a Spanish-to-English translation. The court held Sanchez failed to preserve the speedy-trial claim because he never made an unambiguous, timely demand in the trial court. The court also upheld admission of the translated statements, finding the translator acted as a reliable language conduit and that the statements were non-testimonial for confrontation-clause purposes.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas granted the appellant's unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal of a trial court order adjudicating him guilty of theft of a firearm and sentencing him to seven months confinement. The motion complied with the appellate rule requiring signature by both the appellant and his attorney. Because no opinion had been issued in the case, the court dismissed the appeal, denied any rehearing motions, and directed that the court's mandate issue immediately.

The Seventh Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Curtis Johnson’s jury conviction for continuous sexual abuse of his six-year-old granddaughter and his 40-year prison sentence. Johnson argued the trial court erred by admitting evidence of prior sexual abuse against another victim (A.J.) because the State’s notice was insufficient. The court held Johnson waived complaint by not requesting a continuance or other relief to address alleged surprise, and even assuming error, any notice defect was harmless because the State had informed him of the victim, offenses, and date range well before trial and A.J. testified at a pretrial hearing.

The State of Texas, as appellant, moved to dismiss its own appeal in a criminal case from the County Court at Law No. 9 of Travis County. The motion to dismiss was signed by the Travis County Attorney and filed under the applicable Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure. The Court of Appeals granted the State’s motion and dismissed the appeal. The opinion is a short memorandum decision, noting the procedural compliance with the rule and disposing of the appeal accordingly.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals dismissed Efrain Rodulfo Jr.'s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Rodulfo, who pleaded guilty under a plea bargain and was sentenced to 25 years on November 18, 2025, filed a pro se motion construed as a notice of appeal on April 14, 2026. The appellate court found the notice untimely because it was filed well after the 30-day deadline (or 90 days only if a timely motion for new trial is filed), and no extension was sought. The trial court also certified that Rodulfo waived and did not have a right to appeal, which required dismissal as well.

The court received a motion from appointed appellate counsel in Brandon Dmichael Lively’s appeal in which counsel stated continued representation was not in the appellant’s best interest and requested substitution. Because the trial court, not the appellate court, has authority to appoint or replace counsel for an indigent defendant on appeal, the court dismissed the motion, abated the appeal, and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether good cause exists to replace counsel and to appoint substitute counsel if appropriate. The trial court must file records of its hearing and any appointment/removal orders by May 22, 2026.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Dana Meador’s pretrial habeas petition seeking a reduction of a $750,000 bond in a first-degree murder prosecution. The court reviewed the statutory and common-law factors for bail, including the violent nature of the offense, potential punishment, community safety, flight risk, and financial ability to post bond. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court, the appeals court found Meador failed to prove the bond was excessive or used as an instrument of oppression and concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The Court of Appeals (Seventh District) ordered the appeal of Cody Lee Cochran abated and the case remanded because the reporter's record lacks three State exhibits (22, 23, 24) that are encrypted by the FBI and unreadable without special software. The court directed the trial court to obtain accessible, reviewable copies of those exhibits and to have the court reporter file them with the appellate clerk by May 28, 2026. If the State cannot provide usable copies, the trial court must hold a hearing under the appellate rule to determine whether the exhibits are functionally lost or destroyed and make written findings for the supplemental record.

The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment adjudicating Pierre Damond Hall guilty and sentencing him to nine years’ imprisonment after revoking deferred adjudication for methamphetamine possession, but it modified the judgment to delete a $1,550 fine that was included in the written judgment without being orally pronounced at the adjudication hearing. Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief finding no arguable grounds for appeal but asked the court to remove the unpronounced fine. The Court of Appeals conducted an independent review, found no reversible error affecting liberty, and deleted the unsupported fine while granting counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A Rusk County jury convicted Justin Tremane Simon of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to seventy years’ imprisonment. On appeal Simon argued the evidence was insufficient to prove he was the robber and that the trial court erred by instructing jurors they could consider good-conduct time when assessing punishment. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence (possession of pharmacy stock bottles, a damp hoodie, a pill on his person, his presence at his mother’s home tied to the victim’s phone pings, and false statements to police) supported a rational verdict. The court also found the jury-charge error regarding good-conduct time did not cause egregious harm given the overall charge, the evidence, counsel’s arguments, and no jury inquiries.

The Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, affirmed appellant Joseph Bebout West Jr.'s conviction for family-violence assault and one-year sentence. West challenged the denial of his motion for new trial, claiming a juror (the Longview mayor) created bias, and argued the jury charge omitted a consent instruction. The court found West forfeited the juror complaint because defense counsel failed to ask voir dire questions that would have revealed the mayoralty and that no evidence supported a consent instruction. Because the record supports the trial court's rulings, the conviction was affirmed.

The Court of Appeals of the Sixth Appellate District (Texarkana) denied John Henry Garber’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order forcing the Delta County court to rule on multiple pro se pretrial motions in three misdemeanor cases. The court found the record Garber supplied inadequate to show he had a clear, ministerial right to the relief because the registers show he failed to appear at a December 16, 2024 hearing and a warrant issued; there is no record he was re-arrested or returned to custody. The court emphasized mandamus requires a complete record and that a relator must show a clear right to relief, which Garber did not do.

A jury convicted Eric Lon Jones of delivery of methamphetamine (4–200 grams) in Williamson County and assessed 45 years and a $10,000 fine. On appeal Jones argued the jury charge erred by (1) failing to include a venue instruction under former article 13.04 (venue for offenses committed on or within 400 yards of county boundaries) and (2) failing to define “preponderance of the evidence.” The Court of Appeals held there was no error: article 13.04 was not applicable where the offense and prosecution occurred in the same county and the evidence locating the buy in Williamson County was undisputed, and the court was not required to define “preponderance of the evidence.” The conviction was affirmed.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals reviewed Christopher Devontae Bennett’s appeal after the trial court adjudicated his guilt for sexual assault of a child and sentenced him to 18 years’ confinement following violations of court-ordered community supervision. Bennett’s appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw with an Anders brief stating the appeal is frivolous. The appellate court independently reviewed the record, found no arguable grounds for reversal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s adjudication and sentence. The court advised Bennett of his rights and noted he filed no pro se brief.

The Court of Appeals (Sixth District) affirmed the trial court's revocation of Roy Cletdell Robinson's community supervision for a state-jail felony possession conviction. Robinson was alleged to have failed to report for supervision (March–May 2025), failed to provide a valid address, failed to perform required community service, and failed to pay fines and costs. The court found the evidence (including testimony from Robinson and his supervision officer) sufficient by a preponderance to support revocation, and held Robinson forfeited his claim that his due-process rights were violated because he failed to timely object at the revocation hearing.

The Texas court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s revocation of Roy Cletdell Robinson’s five-year community supervision for evading arrest with a prior conviction. Robinson argued the evidence was insufficient to support revocation and that the trial court violated his due process rights by relying on hearsay probation officer testimony without a business records affidavit. The appellate court applied the same standards and analysis used in Robinson’s companion appeal, found no reversible error, and concluded the trial court properly revoked supervision. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Tyrone Shepard for possession of a controlled substance (less than one gram) but modified the trial court judgment to correct clerical errors about plea and jury-waiver language. Shepard argued jury-charge error, improper reopening of the State's case, and denial of a speedy-trial motion. The court held the “on or about” instruction was a correct statement of law and not a comment on the evidence, that the trial court permissibly reopened the State’s case, and that the Barker factors did not show a constitutional speedy-trial violation given delays largely attributable to Shepard and minimal prejudice.

The Court of Appeals reviewed Deandre Brooks’s appeal after the trial court adjudicated him guilty of evading arrest in a motor vehicle, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous; Brooks did not file a pro se response. The appellate court conducted an independent review, found no reversible error, but identified a nonreversible clerical error in the judgment’s listed court costs. The court modified the judgment to reflect $404 in costs, affirmed the judgment as modified, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s revocation of Austin Douglas Worley’s community supervision and three-year prison sentence. Worley, originally placed on deferred adjudication for evading arrest in 2017, faced a third motion to adjudicate alleging six violations including a new aggravated-assault offense, failures to report in writing, and unpaid fines and fees. The trial court found five violations true after testimony and evidence, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced him to three years’ confinement. The appellate court held the State met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and that the revocation did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Michael Marvin Tucker pleaded guilty to deadly conduct, received deferred adjudication and five years’ community supervision, but after the State moved to adjudicate he pleaded true to the allegations, the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no arguable grounds for appeal, the court conducted an independent review of the record, found no reversible error, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

A Texas court of appeals affirmed Jose Luis Espinoza’s convictions for one count of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and two counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact. A jury convicted him and sentenced him to prison terms running concurrently. On appeal he raised nine issues—challenging sufficiency of the continuous-abuse duration element, double-jeopardy, admission of outcry testimony, extraneous-offense evidence, medical records, expert testimony on credibility, and cumulative error. The court rejected these arguments, finding the evidence legally sufficient, preserved or harmless errors where applicable, and no cumulative error warranting reversal.

The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals reviewed Homer Esquivel Jr.’s appeal after the trial court revoked his deferred-adjudication community supervision and adjudicated him guilty of two controlled-substance and firearm offenses, sentencing him to concurrent ten-year terms. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no arguable grounds for appeal; the court conducted an independent review, found no reversible error, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court corrected the judgment to reflect that Esquivel pled true to count 14 (not 15), granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and explained appellant’s rights to seek discretionary review.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Walter Green Jr.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Green had previously been convicted of continuous family violence and later filed an Article 11.07 habeas application challenging his conviction and sentence. The trial court recommended dismissal as a subsequent application and forwarded its findings to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which dismissed the application. Green attempted to appeal the trial court’s findings that were sent to the Court of Criminal Appeals, but the appellate court concluded it lacks jurisdiction over postconviction matters and dismissed the appeal after Green failed to show grounds to proceed.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Michael Dean Samuelson’s pro se appeal from his convictions for theft and possession with intent to deliver because the trial-court certifications, which Samuelson signed, state his case was a plea bargain and that he has no right of appeal. The court gave Samuelson until March 27, 2026 to show grounds to continue the appeal and received no response. Relying on the trial-court certifications and applicable Texas appellate rules and precedent, the panel dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits.

The Second Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Gene Anthony Tutt’s convictions and 38-year sentences for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and occlusion assault. Tutt complained on appeal that (1) the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s out-of-court statements to an officer as hearsay and (2) the State failed to prove he was the same person convicted of two prior felonies used to enhance punishment. The court held the victim’s statements were admissible as excited utterances and that documentary evidence (judgments, identification numbers, social security number, booking/ten-print records) and fingerprint comparison sufficiently linked Tutt to the prior Missouri convictions.

The Second Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Carolyn Rodriguez’s conviction for hindering an official proceeding by disorderly conduct (Tex. Penal Code § 38.13). Rodriguez argued the statute was unconstitutional, the court erred in quashing a subpoena for County Judge Tim O’Hare, the jury charge was defective, and the evidence was insufficient. The court rejected her facial and applied First Amendment challenges, found no abuse of discretion in quashing O’Hare’s subpoena, determined the jury charge contained one harmless omission in mental-state wording but no reversible error, and held the evidence (including an audiovisual recording and deputy testimony) was sufficient to support the conviction.

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed a jury conviction of Ronald Wayne Stivers, Jr. for failing to register as a sex offender. Stivers argued the trial court erred by admitting a prior Illinois conviction as extraneous-offense evidence and that its prejudicial effect outweighed probative value. The court held the prior conviction was admissible to prove Stivers knew of his duty to register — a required mental-state element — and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. The opinion also sua sponte corrected the judgment to cite Article 62.102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed William Mitchell Keen’s conviction and nine-year sentence for indecency with a child. Keen’s court-appointed appellate lawyer filed an Anders brief saying there were no arguable grounds for reversal, and Keen filed a pro se brief. The appeals court conducted a full review of the record, the Anders brief, and the pro se brief, found no reversible error or arguable grounds for appeal, and declined to appoint new counsel for further briefing. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.

The Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal from the revocation of Tiffany Rhae Whittley’s community supervision for a third-degree felony conviction (intentional injury to a child). The trial court found multiple supervision violations, revoked probation, and sentenced her to three years confinement. Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal is frivolous; Whittley did not file a pro se response. The appellate court reviewed the record, found no nonfrivolous issues, corrected the trial court’s judgment to reflect the four violations actually found (a, b1, d, p), and affirmed the judgment as modified.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Sean Harper’s appeal from his conviction for failing to comply with sex-offender registration requirements because the trial-court certification in the record indicated Harper waived his right to appeal. The clerk’s record showed a not-guilty plea and a jury verdict of guilty, while a separate punishment plea agreement limited appeals and contained Harper’s written waiver. The court reviewed both clerk’s and reporter’s records, concluded the certification did not show a right to appeal, gave Harper an opportunity to supply an amended certification, and dismissed the appeal after no amended certification or response was filed.