Court Filings

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Nathaniel Armed Melendez Jr.’s conviction and 70-year sentence for murder. Melendez argued the evidence was insufficient to show he acted intentionally or knowingly, his trial counsel was ineffective for several omissions, and the prosecutor made improper remarks in closing. The court found the evidence—Melendez firing ten rounds into a small apartment, injuring multiple people and fleeing—permitted a rational jury to infer intent or knowledge. The record did not show deficient trial performance or preserved prosecutorial error, so the conviction was affirmed.

The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Luis Alonzo Perez Jr.’s conviction for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated assault. Perez argued (1) the evidence was insufficient, (2) the trial court erred by admitting extraneous-offense evidence, and (3) the court improperly allowed witnesses to describe how the incident affected them. The court found the record supported that Perez forced part of his body into a home while holding and using a knife, threatening the victim, and that prior misconduct evidence and impact testimony were admissible and not unduly prejudicial. The conviction and 14-year sentence were affirmed.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment sentencing Jacob Wayne Peek after he entered an open plea of no contest to indecency with a child by sexual contact. Peek was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment, to run consecutively to a separate thirty-year sentence for an aggravated sexual assault conviction that is not at issue here. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting there were no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal; Peek filed a pro se brief and the State responded. The appellate court reviewed the record and briefs, found the appeal frivolous, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed.

A jury convicted Gabriel Gallegos of continuous sexual abuse of a child and two counts of indecency with a child. On appeal to the Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio), Gallegos argued the evidence was insufficient for one indecency count, alleged multiple jury-charge errors, and contested assessment of court costs. The court upheld the convictions, finding Amy Doe’s outcry and other evidence sufficient for the indecency conviction, that any potential jury-charge defects did not cause the egregious harm required to reverse unpreserved errors, and that Gallegos forfeited his complaint about the court-cost inquiry by not objecting at sentencing.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Edward Arnold Few’s convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by exposure. Few challenged multiple trial rulings — late disclosure of cell-phone extraction reports, admission of photos/videos from phones, hearsay/outcry testimony, extraneous-offense testimony, a ChildSafe interview video excerpt, and a double-jeopardy claim. The court rejected each argument, finding Few waived many objections by failing to timely and specifically object at trial, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under the applicable evidentiary rules and statutory provisions, and that the two convictions punished distinct acts involving different body parts (anus vs. genitals).

Justice Meza dissents from the court’s judgment in Carlos Zepeda Gonzales’s appeal for online solicitation of a minor. She agrees with the disposition reached but would abate and remand for the trial court to clarify and, if necessary, reform its written judgment. The written judgment contains inconsistent or omitted findings (unchecked registration box, wrong or missing fine/costs/fees, and no clear Chapter 62 registration pronouncement), while the record shows the trial court orally referenced an inapplicable 42A.054 (formerly 3g) finding. Because of these irreconcilable conflicts, she would send the case back to correct the record and ensure mandatory registration findings are properly made and reflected.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment sentencing Carlos Zepeda Gonzales to nine years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine after the court adjudicated guilt on an online solicitation of a minor conviction following violations of deferred adjudication. Gonzales argued his sentence was excessive, that the court improperly made a “42A” finding affecting parole, and that the court failed to inquire into his ability to pay costs. The appellate court found each complaint forfeited for failure to object at trial and explained that, even if preserved, the sentence was within the statutory range and not grossly disproportionate.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting Paul Dillon Brown of possession with intent to deliver fentanyl and sentencing him to life imprisonment. Brown argued the appointment order incorrectly found he could pay for counsel and that his life sentence was cruel and unusual. The court held no modification to the appointment order was needed because Brown later retained private counsel and was not ordered to pay appointed-counsel fees. The Eighth Amendment claim was not considered because Brown failed to present his motion for new trial to the trial court, so the issue was unpreserved.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed the conviction of Jacoby Latraille Brown, who pleaded guilty to failure to comply with sex-offender registration requirements and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no nonfrivolous appellate issues; the court independently reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court did find nonreversible errors in the bill of costs: a prematurely assessed $60 time-payment fee, which it struck under Dulin, and a contested assessment of $682.50 in attorney fees, which the concurrence would also delete but the majority did not.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment revoking Gary Ladale Criston's community supervision for possession offenses and sentencing him to five years' imprisonment with a $1,550 fine. Criston had originally pleaded guilty to possessing less than one gram of cocaine and received a ten-year sentence suspended in favor of five years' community supervision. After the State alleged multiple violations, the trial court found the allegations true and revoked supervision. Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no arguable appellate issues; the appellate court independently reviewed the record and found no reversible error, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed.

The First District Court of Texas affirmed William Ordonezhernandez’s conviction and twenty-year sentence for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit another felony. Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw with an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous and identifying no reversible error. The court independently reviewed the entire record, considered the appellant’s pro se filing, found no arguable grounds for appeal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court judgment. The court instructed counsel to notify the appellant of the result and his right to seek discretionary review.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a ten-year sentence imposed on Gracie Ann Mata after she pleaded guilty to third-degree felony DWI with two prior DWI convictions. The defendant argued the sentence was grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court held the claim was forfeited because the defendant failed to raise the proportionality challenge in the trial court, leaving the appellate record insufficient for the fact-intensive proportionality review required by precedent. Because the sentence was within the statutory range and the claim was unpreserved, the court affirmed.

The First District of Texas affirmed Christian Avery Franklyn’s conviction for second-degree sexual assault. The court reviewed whether the trial judge abused discretion by admitting two of Franklyn’s remote prior misdemeanor convictions for impeachment while excluding the complainant’s similar remote conviction. The court assumed error in the evidentiary rulings but found any error harmless because the record — including conflicting testimony about intoxication, forensic DNA evidence, discrepancies in witnesses’ accounts, and other credibility-damaging facts — provided fair assurance the rulings did not influence the jury’s verdict.

The First Court of Appeals dismissed two criminal appeals by Brelin Keithian Coleman for lack of jurisdiction because his notices of appeal were untimely. Coleman was convicted and sentenced on September 25, 2025 to concurrent 10-year prison terms for sexual assault (cause no. 1824733) and burglary with intent to commit another felony (cause no. 1824734). Texas rules require a notice of appeal within 30 days of sentencing unless a timely motion for new trial is filed; no such motions were in the clerk’s records and Coleman did not file notices until February 11, 2026. The court therefore dismissed the appeals and denied pending motions as moot.

The First District of Texas dismissed two criminal appeals by Brelin Keithian Coleman for lack of jurisdiction because his notices of appeal were filed late. Coleman was sentenced on September 25, 2025 to concurrent 10-year terms following convictions for sexual assault (case no. 1824733) and burglary with intent to commit another felony (case no. 1824734). Because no motion for new trial was filed and the standard 30-day deadline to appeal expired on October 26, 2025, Coleman's notices filed February 11, 2026 were untimely. The court therefore dismissed the appeals and any pending motions as moot.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Armando Jesus Pedraza’s conviction and thirty-year sentence for assault on a family member by impeding breathing. Pedraza argued ineffective assistance of counsel at punishment because his lawyer failed to object to the complainant’s testimony about a news article and incorrectly advised him he could both testify and invoke the Fifth Amendment. The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance, assumed arguendo some attorney errors but found Pedraza did not prove prejudice—there was not a reasonable probability the sentence would have been more lenient absent the alleged errors given his extensive criminal history and the aggravating evidence presented.

The Sixth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction of Justin Clayton Goldthrite for retaliation after reviewing the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial. Goldthrite argued the State failed to comply with two Texas criminal procedure statutes governing discovery and evidence handling (Articles 38.371 and 39.14). The court applied the same legal standard and analysis it used in a companion appeal and concluded the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial, so the judgment was affirmed.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed Justin Clayton Goldthrite’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after the trial court denied his motion for new trial. Goldthrite argued the State failed to disclose incident reports under Texas discovery statutes and that those reports affected the voluntariness of his guilty plea and his ability to use relationship evidence. The court applied Texas precedent holding a guilty plea is voluntary if the defendant had sufficient awareness of circumstances and found Goldthrite was aware of the incidents and had questioned the complaining witness, so no error was shown.

The Texas Court of Appeals dismissed Lewis Carl Hunt’s appeal of his conviction for murder because the trial court certified that the case was resolved by a plea bargain and that Hunt waived his right to appeal. Under Texas appellate rules, when a defendant pleads guilty or no contest pursuant to a plea agreement and the trial court certifies no right to appeal (or the defendant waives appeal), the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The court therefore dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Frank Estrada III’s conviction for one count of violating a protective order. Estrada was tried on three counts (two assault counts and one protective-order violation); the jury acquitted or deadlocked on the assault counts (mistrial and later dismissal) but convicted on the protective-order violation. Estrada challenged the admission of a 911 recording and EMS medical records and the trial court’s granting of the State’s challenge for cause to Juror 53. The court held the evidentiary rulings were not reversible error and that, although the trial court abused its discretion in excusing Juror 53 for cause, that mistake did not harm Estrada’s substantial rights, so the conviction stands.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s judgment that had adjudicated Debrah Elizabeth East guilty of possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine after she violated terms of deferred adjudication community supervision. The State proved she used controlled substances and failed to complete restitution; after a hearing the trial court imposed a nine-month state jail sentence. Appellate counsel found no nonfrivolous issues and filed an Anders brief; the appeals court independently reviewed the record, concluded the appeal was frivolous, and affirmed, granting counsel permission to withdraw.

A Lamar County jury convicted Andrew McCarty of indecency with a child by sexual contact. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and the written judgment also included a $50 payment to the Children’s Advocacy Center and listed the offense as a second-degree felony. The Court of Appeals held the oral sentence—life imprisonment with no fine—controls, so the $50.00 entry must be deleted from the written judgment. The court also corrected the degree entry to reflect that the second-degree conviction was enhanced to first degree. The judgment was affirmed as modified.

The Court of Appeals dismissed William Antoine Thomas’s appeal from a conviction entered pursuant to a plea bargain because the trial-court certification, signed by the judge, Thomas, and his trial counsel, states the case is a plea-bargain case, that the defendant has no right of appeal, and that Thomas waived his right to appeal. The State moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the court granted the motion, holding the certification deprived it of jurisdiction to hear the appeal under applicable Texas appellate rules and precedent.

A jury convicted Tyriq Bradford of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Bradford appealed, arguing the trial court erred by admitting three out-of-court statements by the six-year-old victim identifying him, over hearsay and confrontation objections. The court concluded the statements were admissible as excited utterances and also were non-testimonial, and that the victim’s presence and limited testimony at trial satisfied confrontation requirements. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion on hearsay and the Confrontation Clause was not violated, the conviction was affirmed.

The Court of Appeals reviewed James Chadleigh Schrotel’s conviction for misdemeanor assault causing bodily injury against a family member. The court upheld the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction but found reversible error in jury selection: a prospective juror (venireperson six) admitted a bias favoring victims of family violence and could not guarantee that bias would not affect his decision. The trial court denied the defendant’s challenge for cause and also denied an additional peremptory strike, resulting in an objectionable juror sitting. Because that denial was erroneous and harmful, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The defendant, Ethan Alexander Herrera, appealed a conviction for aggravated robbery. On April 13, 2026, Herrera filed a signed, voluntary motion to dismiss his appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). The Court of Appeals granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. The opinion is a short memorandum explaining the dismissal was pursuant to the rule permitting voluntary dismissal when requested by an appellant and properly signed.

The Texas Court of Appeals (Tenth Appellate District) affirmed Dana Loment Pettigrew’s convictions for two counts of indecency with a child by contact and exposure. Pettigrew challenged admission of extraneous-offense testimony from L.H. under article 38.37 (as-applied facial challenge, Rule 403 balancing, and jury instruction) and claimed his counsel denied him the right to testify at the guilt-innocence phase. The court held the statute was not unconstitutional as applied, the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403, the article 38.37 jury instruction was proper, and Pettigrew failed to show prejudice from counsel’s failure to reopen the evidence; thus the convictions and sentences were affirmed.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed Victor Rolando Corpus’s convictions for continuous sexual abuse of a child and indecency with a child. Corpus sought a continuance at trial because subpoenaed psychiatric/hospital records for a State witness had not arrived. The trial court denied the oral motion after efforts to locate the records and the court’s concern that delay could be indefinite. The appeals court held Corpus waived the complaint because the continuance motion was unsworn and, alternatively, that the court did not abuse its discretion because the missing records were not shown to be unexpectedly unavailable or likely to be obtained with a finite delay, and Corpus showed no harm from the denial.

A Texas appellate court affirmed the convictions of Noel Amador-Castillo for continuous sexual abuse of a young child and attempted indecency with a child by contact. The jury had convicted him of continuous sexual abuse (multiple acts over years) and the lesser-included offense of attempted indecency by breast touching, and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms. The court rejected a double-jeopardy challenge because the breast-touching offense is distinct from the acts alleged as predicates for continuous sexual abuse. It also held the victim’s testimony was legally sufficient to support both convictions.

The First District of Texas dismissed Omarion Brown’s appeals from five felony convictions for lack of jurisdiction because Brown validly waived his right to appeal as part of plea agreements in each case. Brown pleaded guilty or stipulated to evidence in five trial causes, signed written waivers and advisals acknowledging he understood and waived appeal rights, and the trial court’s judgments reflected the waiver. Because the record affirmatively shows the waivers were knowing and voluntary and Brown admitted the waivers to this Court, the court concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals and pending motions.