Court Filings

A jury convicted Jan Curtis Harzan of communicating with and arranging to meet a minor for sexual purposes after he messaged and agreed to meet an undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old. Before trial the court ruled evidence of alleged sexual misconduct by Harzan from the 1970s would be excluded in the prosecution’s case-in-chief but could be admitted if Harzan asserted an entrapment defense. To avoid that prejudicial evidence, Harzan declined the entrapment defense and was convicted. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the court’s conditioning of exclusion violated Harzan’s constitutional right to present a defense, though the evidence supporting guilt was otherwise substantial.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed Logan Tyler Blanton’s sentences after he pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. Blanton argued the trial court abused its discretion by imposing concurrent 30-year terms without adequately considering his intellectual and psychological limitations, low risk of reoffending, and compliance with bond. The court held Blanton failed to preserve these complaints because he did not make timely, specific objections or file a motion for new trial, and noted that the sentences fall within the statutory punishment range.

The Court of Appeals of the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court judgments convicting Jarod Dajon Howell of four counts of possession with intent to deliver various controlled substances. Howell was sentenced to concurrent terms (42 years on two counts, 35 years on two counts). Appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous. The court independently reviewed the record, found no non-frivolous issues preserved for appeal, granted counsel’s motion, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant Lauro Eliud Salinas’s conviction and sentence for third-degree assault by impeding breath or circulation. Salinas appealed only the trial court’s refusal to redact a portion of a 911 call in which the caller said Salinas left the scene with a gun. The court held the statement was relevant contextual evidence explaining why witnesses called 911, was probative of consciousness of guilt and Salinas’s state of mind, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court therefore found no abuse of discretion in admitting the recording and affirmed the judgment.

The State filed five related appeals from criminal cases involving Brent William Curry. The court granted the State's motion to consolidate the appeals, ordered the issues and records from four appeals merged into cause number 03-26-00312-CR, and dismissed the four now-duplicative docketed appeals. The consolidated appeal will proceed under cause number 03-26-00312-CR. The court cited prior practice in Reece v. State and explained that the trial court had already effectively consolidated the matters by taking judicial notice of related docket documents.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Tyler Andrew Montoya for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. Montoya argued the trial court erred by admitting a video of his police interview without Miranda warnings and by denying his motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held the interview was noncustodial because Montoya came voluntarily, was told he could leave, was not restrained, and the questioning was not the functional equivalent of an arrest. The court also found no reasonable probability counsel’s choices altered the guilty verdict.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Ricardo Isaac Alonso’s conviction for deadly conduct, a Class A misdemeanor, after a jury found him guilty of the lesser-included offense following a collision while he was fleeing law enforcement. Alonso argued the evidence was insufficient because the complainant’s vehicle, with bright lights, may have caused the crash. The court applied the standard that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, upheld the jury’s credibility determinations, and found the combined evidence supported a reasonable inference that Alonso recklessly endangered the victim by driving into oncoming traffic while evading officers.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Guy Dean Peele’s conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact. Peele was tried by jury after a 2021 incident in which the complainant, then 14, accused him of touching her breasts while riding a four-wheeler and making sexually explicit remarks. On appeal Peele challenged sufficiency of the evidence, several evidentiary rulings, and the State’s closing argument. The court found S.S.’s testimony sufficient to support the verdict, held any hearsay error harmless because S.S. later testified, and deemed the remainder of Peele’s complaints unpreserved for appellate review.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed appellant Giovani Aveleno Kitts’s criminal appeal after he filed a motion to dismiss that complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). The motion was signed by Kitts and his counsel, and the court granted it, ending appellate review. The opinion is a short per curiam dismissal with no discussion of the merits and is not for publication.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Cody Tyler Morrow’s conviction for second-degree felony possession of fentanyl after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle. Officers found Morrow unconscious in his running car outside a closed store, smelled and observed marijuana in plain view, and then observed a baggie of hundreds of pills. The court held the officer was performing a community caretaking function in securing aid for an apparently incapacitated person and, based on the officer’s observations and experience, the contraband was in plain view and gave probable cause to seize it.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment revoking Antonio Lee Grey's deferred adjudication community supervision and adjudicating him guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Grey had pleaded true to a supervision violation at the revocation hearing; the trial court revoked supervision and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal and moved to withdraw; Grey did not file a pro se brief. The appellate court reviewed the record and concluded the appeal is frivolous and without merit, granted counsel's motion, and affirmed.

The court reviewed Antonio Lee Grey’s appeal after the trial court revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of attempted assault of a family/household member with a prior conviction, and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The State conceded the sentence was illegal because attempted assault (as an attempt to a third-degree felony) is a state jail felony with a statutory maximum of two years. The court held the sentence exceeded the authorized range, reversed the punishment portion of the judgment, remanded for a new punishment hearing within the proper statutory range, and otherwise affirmed the conviction.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Kaelyn Smith’s felony-murder judgment because the trial court failed to complete statutorily required notice and form under Ohio’s violent-offender law (Sierah’s Law, R.C. 2903.41 et seq.) before sentencing. Smith had pleaded guilty to felony murder with a firearm specification; the parties and judge discussed the violent-offender form and defense counsel waived reading the paperwork, but the record does not contain an executed form or an affirmative on-the-record advisement. Because the trial court did not provide the required pre-sentencing notice, the appellate court found plain error and ordered further proceedings for proper notice and signature.

The First District Court of Appeals reversed the municipal court's denial of a victim's request for restitution and remanded for a restitution hearing. Defendant Adam Winkle had pleaded guilty/no contest to several driving-related offenses after side‑swiping multiple cars while intoxicated. Victim M.L. submitted a victim impact statement with documentation that she paid a $500 insurance deductible for damage to her vehicle. The appellate court held the trial court erred in refusing restitution based on the existence of insurance and directed a hearing to determine restitution for the deductible.

The court reviewed Cierra Snow’s appeal of her domestic-violence conviction for punching her ten-year-old daughter after an argument. The appeals court held that Snow’s use of force was not reasonable parental discipline because she presented no evidence to meet her burden and the video showed a harmful blow. The court affirmed the conviction and rejected Snow’s argument that she should have been charged only under the child-endangering statute. However, the court found the trial court failed to credit Snow for one day of jail time and remanded solely to correct that sentencing credit.

The First District Court of Appeals reversed Patricia Hauser’s municipal-court conviction for theft and discharged her. Hauser pleaded no contest after the State recited facts that she left a bar without paying a $69.33 tab when her credit card was declined. The appellate court held the State’s explanation of circumstances affirmatively showed the bar owner consented to her possession of the drinks when he served them, which negated an essential element of the charged theft offense. Because the explanation could not support the conviction under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), the court reversed and discharged Hauser.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals denied Alan Harris Jr.’s App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his 2025 direct appeal. Harris argued appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising challenges to his sentence and plea, and he filed a late supplemental claim that his plea was involuntary because of alleged deficiencies outside the record. The court found the supplement untimely, held that the plea waived many challenges (including failure to file a suppression motion), and determined the plea colloquy and sentencing record did not show reversible error. The application to reopen was denied for lack of merit and timeliness.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Delaware County Common Pleas Court's August 27, 2025 prison sentence for Adam Stone. Stone pleaded guilty to telecommunications fraud and attempted impersonation of a peace officer; the trial court imposed consecutive prison terms (36 months and 18 months). On appeal Stone argued the consecutive sentences were disproportionate and that the convictions should have merged as allied offenses. The appellate court found the trial court made the required statutory consecutive-sentence findings and that the two convictions arose from separate, distinct conduct, so it affirmed the sentence.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Shawn Atchley’s conviction for trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound following his arrest at a tavern. Officers found a handgun, $1,200, and about 1.5 grams of fentanyl divided into 11 tied baggies in Atchley’s sock. Atchley admitted possessing the drugs and firearm but insisted the fentanyl was for personal use and sharing, not sale. The court held the jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the drug packaging, officer testimony about trafficking indicators, and Atchley’s own admission about sharing supported the trafficking conviction.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Timothy A. Smith’s aggregate 88-month prison sentence imposed by the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas. Smith had pleaded guilty to weapons under disability, two counts of gross sexual imposition, and one count of retaliation as part of a plea agreement. On appeal he argued the trial court gave only cursory consideration to statutory sentencing factors. The appellate court held the trial court expressly considered the purposes of sentencing and listed the specific factors from R.C. 2929.12 it applied, sentenced within the statutory ranges, and therefore the sentence was not contrary to law.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Charles Flaherty’s convictions and sentences after review of multiple claims. The court rejected Flaherty’s challenges to evidentiary rulings, denials of pretrial motions asserting self-defense immunity and speedy trial violations, and the claim that the trial court failed to conduct a Faretta hearing. The appellate court also upheld sentences for two counts of attempted second-degree murder, finding no reversible error, but noted the defendant may still raise an improper reclassification sentencing claim in a post-conviction proceeding.

The Florida Supreme Court denied Chadwick Willacy’s requests for public records and related relief after the Governor signed his death warrant. Willacy had sought records from FDOC and other state agencies about Florida’s lethal-injection protocol and interagency communications; the circuit court denied those motions and refused rehearing or in camera review. The Supreme Court treated his appeal as a Rule 9.142(c) petition, found Willacy failed to show the records were tied to a colorable postconviction claim (and were therefore an impermissible fishing expedition), and denied his petition and his habeas petition, dismissed his appeal of an extension request, and denied oral argument.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Josue Antonio Gurrola’s conviction for first-degree sexual assault of a child. Gurrola argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from a clinical supervisor at a children’s advocacy center about the victim’s therapy, symptoms, and feelings during the guilt-innocence phase. The appeals court concluded Gurrola failed to preserve that complaint because he did not make contemporaneous, sufficiently specific objections at each contested point or obtain a running objection, so the court declined to address the merits and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, granted appellant Chadwick Edward Lambert’s joint motion to dismiss his criminal appeal. The motion was signed by Lambert and his appellate counsel and cited Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). Because the motion complied with the rule, the court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits. The decision is a brief memorandum opinion filed April 14, 2026, and the dismissal was entered on appellant’s motion.

The Court of Appeals of the Seventh District of Texas affirmed Tara Zoe Rios’s conviction for driving while intoxicated with a child passenger. Rios asserted she wanted to represent herself at a pretrial hearing but also demanded trial proceed that day; the visiting judge declined to allow self-representation that day and offered either to proceed to trial with appointed counsel or revisit self-representation later. Rios chose to proceed with counsel and went to trial, where she was convicted. The court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion and Rios effectively waived self-representation; assessed fines and costs were waived for indigence.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences of Justin Wayne Ortego, who was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and three counts of indecency by contact based largely on text-message evidence recovered by his estranged wife and testimony from the victim. Ortego argued the phone evidence should have been suppressed and that the trial court erred by denying requests to have two defense witnesses testify remotely by Zoom. The court upheld the denial of suppression and concluded there is no general statutory, rule-based, or constitutional right to admit live remote testimony absent a specific statutory exception or proper procedure, so exclusion did not constitute reversible error.

The Court of Appeals of the First District of Texas affirmed the convictions of Justin Wayne Ortego for continuous sexual abuse of a young child and three counts of indecency by contact. Ortego challenged (1) denial of his motion to suppress text-message evidence his former partner, Jennifer, retrieved from his phone and (2) the trial court’s refusal to allow two defense witnesses to testify remotely via Zoom. The court held the phone-search evidence was admissible and that no statutory, rule-based, or constitutional right compelled admission of live remote testimony here, so exclusion was within the trial court’s discretion.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant Justin Wayne Ortego’s convictions for continuous sexual abuse of a young child and three counts of indecency by contact, and the trial court’s sentence (life plus three 20-year terms). The defendant challenged (1) denial of his motion to suppress evidence his wife found on his phone and (2) denial of his requests to have two defense witnesses testify remotely by Zoom. The court held the wife’s search did not trigger suppression and that trial courts have no general, enforceable right to admit live remote testimony absent a rule or statute, so denying Zoom testimony was not an abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Justin Wayne Ortego for continuous sexual abuse of a child and three counts of indecency by contact. Ortego challenged (1) the denial of his motion to suppress evidence his wife found on his phone and the trial court’s refusal to give an Article 38.23 jury instruction, and (2) the denial of his requests to have two defense witnesses testify remotely by Zoom. The court held the phone-search evidence was admissible and that there is no general statutory, rule-based, or constitutional right to require live remote testimony in criminal trials absent a specific statutory exception or agreement of the parties, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reviewed Jordan Potts’s conviction for murder and the Anders brief filed by his appointed counsel asserting the appeal is frivolous. After independent review of the full record and noting Potts received notice and the chance to file a pro se response (he did not), the court concluded there are no arguable grounds for reversal. The court affirmed the trial-court judgment sentencing Potts to 45 years, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and directed counsel to notify Potts of the result and file proof of that notice.