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 Tenth Court of Appeals reviewed Father's appeal of a trial court order terminating his parental rights to four children. Counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous, and Father submitted a pro se response. The appellate court conducted a full review of the record, found sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings that Father violated Family Code §161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and that termination was in the children’s best interest, and affirmed the termination order. The court denied counsel’s motions to withdraw because they did not show independent good cause under Texas law.

The Tenth Appellate District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s bill of review challenging a July 26, 2022 order that terminated his parental rights to A.A.C.C. The Department moved for traditional summary judgment, arguing a six-month statutory bar under Texas Family Code §161.211(a) prevents collateral or direct attacks on such termination orders. Appellant did not file any response to the summary judgment motion. The court held the Department met its burden by showing the termination was under §161.002(b) and the bill of review was filed well after the six-month deadline, so the petition was time-barred.

The Texas Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court order terminating both parents’ rights to infant Ivy after a jury found, by clear and convincing evidence, statutory grounds D, E, and N and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The Department of Family and Protective Services removed Ivy after she arrived at the hospital with a fractured femur, liver laceration, and bruising; testimony and medical opinions raised serious abuse concerns and showed parental instability and untreated mental-health issues. The court also upheld appointment of the Department as managing conservator and denied Mother’s mistrial claim about an improper juror communication.

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 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 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.

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 Supreme Court (Justice Hawkins, joined by two justices) concurred with the Court’s opinion holding that the plaintiffs qualify as prevailing parties entitled to attorney’s fees under a specific Texas statute. The concurrence explains that although the trial court labeled the relief a "temporary injunction," the statutory scheme at issue makes such relief effectively final because disclosure of information cannot be undone. Because the defendants complied and the information was disclosed, the plaintiffs obtained ultimate relief and thus prevailed for fee-shifting purposes.

The Texas Supreme Court held that two former Webb Consolidated ISD board members who obtained a trial-court temporary injunction ordering the district to produce requested board materials qualified as "prevailing" under Texas Education Code § 11.1512(c-2) and may recover reasonable attorney’s fees for the relief obtained. The court explained that although temporary injunctions normally preserve the status quo and do not confer prevailing-party status, the injunction here effectively granted the only relief the statute authorizes — production of requested information — and the district complied. The court also held board members need not exhaust administrative remedies before suing under § 11.1512(c-2). The case is remanded for determination of recoverable fees limited to the injunction-related claims.

The Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus to direct the trial court to enter summary judgment for Bell Helicopter. The family of a pilot who died in a 2017 helicopter crash sued Bell, claiming the flight manual failed to warn adequately about flying with a loose engine cowling. Bell invoked the federal General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), which bars suits against manufacturers brought more than 18 years after delivery unless a "new" part that is alleged to have caused the accident was added or replaced within 18 years. The Court held the manual revisions did not restart GARA’s 18-year clock because none of the changes constituted a new part alleged to have caused the crash.

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 affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Mireyda and Joel Gonzalez’s suit against the City of Vidor. The Gonzalezes claimed the City was vicariously liable for a police officer’s negligent driving that led to a crash, arguing the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) waived immunity because the officer acted recklessly and failed to use his siren. The Court of Appeals held the emergency exception to the TTCA applied: the officer was responding to an emergency, his use of lights but not a siren was justified under statutory exceptions, and the record did not show conscious indifference or reckless disregard that would waive immunity. The City’s plea to the jurisdiction was properly granted.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Ronald Sutherland’s suit for want of prosecution. Sutherland had sued Thomas Dean Stewart and Phillip Chapman for falsely reporting a 1966 Ford Mustang stolen and sought sanctions and a default judgment against Stewart for discovery failures. The trial court dismissed the case after Sutherland failed to appear for trial. The appeals court held Sutherland did not challenge the dismissal itself, and interlocutory denials of sanctions or default judgments cannot be reviewed separately once a final dismissal stands, so the dismissal is dispositive.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s final order terminating a mother’s parental rights to her eight children. The appeals court reviewed the record after counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no nonfrivolous issues, independently reviewed the record, and agreed the mother’s appeal lacked merit. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the mother endangered the children through substance abuse, constructively abandoned them, and failed to complete court-ordered substance treatment, and that termination was in the children’s best interest. The appeals court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the termination order.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s final order terminating a mother’s parental rights to her child. The appellate court found clear and convincing evidence that the mother endangered the child through substance abuse and related conduct, failed to comply with a court-ordered plan, and that termination was in the child’s best interest. Because the legislature repealed one statutory predicate ground after the proceedings began, the court modified the trial court’s written order to delete the now-void finding under subsection (O). The court denied counsel’s withdrawal and required counsel to pursue further appellate remedies if appropriate.

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 Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Jason Kelsey’s petition for a bill of review seeking to set aside an agreed final divorce decree that awarded most marital assets to Maria Rocha. Kelsey, who signed the decree while incarcerated and proceeded pro se, claimed fraud, duress, lack of a valid marriage, and mischaracterization of his separate property. The trial court found he failed to prove a meritorious defense or that he was prevented by fraud, official mistake, or wrongful act from presenting a defense, and that his own negligence contributed to the outcome. The appellate court held those findings were supported and reviewed for abuse of discretion, so the denial was affirmed.

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 affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment declaring valid and enforceable a 2018 contract conveying a 25% interest in income-producing property to two law firms (later assigned to HPGM, LLC). Price’s attempt to defeat summary judgment relied on untimely, stricken amended pleadings and did not respond with evidence to many no-evidence challenges to her originally pleaded claims and defenses. The court also upheld the award of approximately $300,000 in attorney’s fees to HPGM, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion given HPGM’s billing records and counsel’s testimony about rates, services, and the receivership and bankruptcy work that advanced the declaratory claim.

The Court of Appeals of the Second Appellate District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s December 10, 2025 order terminating Father’s parental rights to A.M. The Department of Family and Protective Services had petitioned to terminate under multiple statutory grounds. Father challenged one predicate ground and alleged due-process defects in the Department’s timelines and service plan, but he did not challenge the other independent predicate findings or preserve the service-plan complaint for appeal. Because at least one unchallenged statutory ground and the best-interest finding supported termination, the appellate court affirmed.

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.