Court Filings

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce between Chukwuemeka Carl Runyon and Bianca Bazile Runyon. After a bench trial, the trial court divided the community estate, appointed both parents joint managing conservators, gave the mother the right to determine the child’s primary residence (with a geographic restriction allowing residence in Brazos County or within 50 miles of Orlando, Florida), and ordered father to pay $1,840 per month in child support. The court found no abuse of discretion in the property division, the relocation decision, or the refusal to grant a child-support credit for travel expenses, given the record and applicable family-law standards.

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 Court of Appeals affirmed a bench-trial judgment awarding Douglas Fuhrman $187,244 plus $30,782.58 in attorney’s fees after he sued his ex-wife, Nancy Fuhrman, for breach of the 2020 agreed divorce decree’s tax-allocation provisions. The trial court found the decree was a valid contract, Douglas performed (Deloitte prepared and filed the 2020 returns), Nancy breached by failing to pay her allocated share, and Douglas suffered damages. The appellate court held the record (tax returns, expert testimony, decree language) provided legally and factually sufficient support for the trial court’s findings and legal conclusions.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s temporary injunction preventing four former CRNA employees from providing CRNA services within 20 miles of any location where they worked for their former employer, Anesthesia Associates, for three years. Anesthesia Associates sued after the CRNAs resigned and began working for a competitor at a local hospital, alleging breach of noncompetition and irreparable harm. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion: the employer showed a legitimate protectable interest (goodwill, specialized training, credentialing), probable success on the claim at trial, and probable irreparable injury that could not be adequately remedied by money damages.

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 Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights to twin children R.H. and E.H. after reviewing an accelerated appeal challenging whether termination was in the children’s best interest. The court applied Texas statutory standards and Holley factors, giving deference to factfinder credibility determinations. It found clear-and-convincing evidence the mother’s persistent methamphetamine use, failure to comply with services and testing, association with an abusive partner, and instability endangered the children and made reunification unsafe. The children were bonded with and well-cared for by their maternal aunt and her husband.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s enforcement order and final judgment enforcing a divorce decree property award in favor of Pamela Sheehan. George Sheehan had spent or moved funds that the divorce decree had awarded from a specific bank account, so the trial court converted the award into a money judgment for $64,601.44 plus $6,200 in attorney’s fees. The appeals court held the enforcement judgment was a permissible enforcement remedy under the Family Code, not an unauthorized modification of the divorce decree, and the award of attorney’s fees was authorized.

The First District of Texas affirmed Nicholas Darris Marshall’s conviction and 12-year sentence for possession of between 4 and 200 grams of methamphetamine. Marshall pleaded guilty after the State waived two enhancement paragraphs; evidence at sentencing included police testimony, lab results showing 2.1152 grams of methamphetamine, and Marshall’s own testimony about how the drugs came to be in his car. The court held Marshall failed to preserve his Eighth Amendment challenge and, even if preserved, the sentence—being within the statutory 2–20 year range—was not grossly disproportionate under the relevant precedent.

Appellants Mark Goloby and Richard Vega sued Harris County commissioners, contending Commissioner Adrian Garcia resigned his county office when the Commissioners Court appointed him to the Gulf Coast Protection District (GCPD) board. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Commissioners Court’s appointment of one of its own members to the GCPD was void under the common-law self-appointment branch of the incompatibility doctrine, so Garcia never lawfully became a GCPD director and therefore did not resign his commissioner seat. Because Garcia remained an official-capacity county officer, governmental immunity barred the claims and the dismissal with prejudice was proper.

The First District of Texas affirmed a bench-trial judgment quieting title in favor of Linda Jean Willis. Pro se appellant Larry Dean White claimed ownership of a vacant lot by adverse possession after decades of mowing and maintenance, but the trial court found his proof insufficient. The appeals court held White failed to prove a required element—that his possession was hostile and exclusive such that it reasonably notified the true owner. Because the evidence did not establish all elements of adverse possession for the statutory period, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s order revoking Q.W.’s probation and committing him to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department for seven years. The juvenile had been placed on probation after pleading true to two counts of aggravated robbery. The State sought modification alleging truancy, a positive marijuana test, and unlawful carrying of a handgun. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Q.W. violated probation, including committing a new-law offense by being found with a handgun in a vehicle, and concluded the evidence supported revocation.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the City of Houston’s summary-judgment motion asserting governmental immunity after a parking-garage collision between a City-owned truck and the plaintiff’s car. The City argued its employee was off-duty and not acting in the course of employment, but the court held the undisputed fact that a City employee was driving a City-owned vehicle gave rise to a rebuttable presumption she was acting within the scope of employment. The City’s affidavit and records were conclusory and failed to conclusively rebut that presumption, so a fact issue remained.

The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of U.S. Bank’s motion for new trial and upheld the default judgment in favor of Business Unlimited. Business Unlimited sued to quiet title after a lien sale and obtained a default judgment when U.S. Bank failed to answer. U.S. Bank sought a new trial under the three-part Craddock standard for setting aside defaults, claiming an administrative mistake and asserting meritorious defenses. The appellate court found U.S. Bank proved mistake but failed to adequately set up factual support for meritorious defenses, so the Craddock test was not satisfied and the denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.

The court affirmed the trial court’s default judgment against U.S. Bank (USB) in a quiet-title action because USB failed to prove entitlement to a new trial under the Craddock standard. USB was served but did not answer, a default judgment was entered, and USB later sought a new trial supported by a late affidavit from a bank vice president. The court held the affidavit was conclusory and lacked personal knowledge about the registered agent’s handling of service, so USB did not show its failure to answer was an accident rather than intentional or due to conscious indifference.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for attorneys Leslie Hyman and Pullman, Cappuccio & Pullen, LLP in Susan Harriman’s legal-malpractice suit. Harriman sued claiming the lawyers mishandled a 2017 hearing to unseal certain sealed court records and that their actions forced her into an unfavorable settlement in an underlying defamation case. The appellees moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment arguing Harriman offered no proof that their conduct proximately caused her damages. The appellate court held Harriman produced only speculation and no more than a scintilla of evidence on proximate cause, so summary judgment was proper.

The Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) affirmed Reginald Dewayne Taylor’s conviction for possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine (4–200 grams) and the jury’s punishment verdict of 35 years’ imprisonment. The court rejected Taylor’s three appellate challenges: (1) the trial court properly denied his motions to suppress because the search-warrant affidavits and reasonable inferences supplied a substantial basis for probable cause to search two residences and vehicles; (2) Instagram records were properly authenticated through a records certificate and corroborating testimony and circumstances; and (3) including a limiting instruction listing all permissible Rule 404(b) purposes was not reversible error and in any event benefited Taylor. The court affirmed the judgment.

The court reviewed an appeal by Oliver Perry Harris from the trial court’s revocation of his deferred adjudication and seven-year sentence after the court found a supervision violation true. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. After its independent review, the appellate court found no arguable grounds for reversal but identified an unsupported $1,743.00 reparations assessment in the written judgment and related inmate trust withdrawal order. The court deleted that reparations assessment from the judgment and the withdrawal order, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the judgment as modified.

The Second Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court’s adjudication of guilt and three-year prison sentence for Joey Sullivan. Sullivan had been placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision after pleading guilty to evading arrest with a vehicle. The State later petitioned to adjudicate, alleging Sullivan fled from a peace officer; after a hearing the trial court found the violation true, adjudicated guilt, and imposed sentence. Sullivan’s appointed appellate attorneys concluded the appeal was frivolous, submitted an Anders brief, and the court agreed there were no arguable grounds for relief.

The Second Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a juvenile court's order committing D.A. to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department after a modification hearing. D.A. had admitted to delinquent conduct, was placed on probation, then repeatedly absconded and violated probation terms; the juvenile court found she violated lawful orders and made the required findings to commit her. On appeal she argued the trial court refused to consider the full range of dispositions by denying a psychological evaluation and prejudging the case. The appellate court found no preserved due-process complaint about the evaluation and no evidence the court predetermined disposition, so it affirmed.

The Court of Appeals of the Second Appellate District of Texas affirmed a trial court order terminating Father’s parental rights to A.S. after a bench trial. Mother had petitioned to terminate, alleging Father failed to support the child and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The appellate court found legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Father failed to provide support in accordance with his ability during the relevant twelve-month period and that termination was in A.S.’s best interest, noting the child’s distress over visits, the child’s improved well-being since visits stopped, and Father’s financial choices and reliance on his fiancée to pay household expenses.

The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment committing Edward Lincoln Goff as a sexually violent predator under the Texas SVP Act. On appeal Goff argued the evidence was legally insufficient to show he currently suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to commit predatory sexual violence. The appellate court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury, relied chiefly on the jury’s credibility determinations, and found the expert testimony (diagnosing pedophilic disorder and identifying risk factors) plus Goff’s history of multiple child-victim offenses, continued offending after detection, lack of insight, and certain coercive acts supported the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court affirmed the trial court’s final divorce decree enforcing a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) that divided the marital estate. The wife, Soo Jin, argued the MSA should be set aside because she signed under duress and did not sign voluntarily, citing health issues, language barriers, a panic attack, and pressure from counsel and the mediator. The appellate court held the MSA met Texas Family Code §6.602 requirements and found competent evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that Soo Jin’s testimony did not show fraud, coercion, or incapacity that would void the agreement. The judgment enforcing the MSA was affirmed.

The Texas Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child, T.C.-J., after the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services removed the child due to suspected prenatal and ongoing methamphetamine exposure. The jury found statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The appellate court rejected Mother’s challenges because she failed to preserve complaints about the sufficiency of the best-interest evidence and about admission of prior Department history by not making the required trial objections or motions.

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 affirmed a default final order terminating or modifying parental rights after Mother obtained substituted service and a default hearing while Father did not appear. Father filed a restricted appeal arguing substituted service and service returns were defective, certain certificates were filed prematurely, and the clerk failed to send notice of judgment. The court concluded Father met the procedural requirements for a restricted appeal, found his briefing on several points inadequate, and determined nothing in the record showed error on its face; therefore the trial court’s default final order was affirmed.

The El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for PlainsCapital Bank in a trespass-to-try-title dispute. Appellants C.V.P.G. Family Trust and its trustee claimed ownership as successors to heirs of Joaquin Chapa, but PlainsCapital relied on a 2018 final judgment from a previous suit that adjudicated mineral title and declared hundreds of named and unknown Chapa heirs to have no ownership. The court held PlainsCapital met its burden to show a final judgment and that Appellants failed to raise a genuine fact issue that the prior judgment was void for lack of proper service or that C.V.P.G. lacked privity with the prior defendants.

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 Stonewater Homeowners Association sued Luther and Laticia Evans for unpaid HOA fees. The parties presented an agreed judgment to the trial court, but at a hearing the Evanses (pro se) disavowed some terms, and the court orally modified the proposed agreement (reducing attorney’s fees, lowering interest, and striking foreclosure language) before signing the judgment. The HOA later filed a motion for new trial complaining the court lacked authority to alter the agreed judgment. The appeals court held the trial court acted within its authority because the modifications were made in open court after the Evanses did not accept the original terms and the HOA did not pursue separate enforcement remedies.