Court Filings

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 the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights to four children. The Department had filed for termination after repeated removals tied to Mother’s chronic methamphetamine use and related instability, including leaving a child in a home with a person against whom a protective order had been obtained. The appellate court found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support statutory grounds (D) and (E) — that Mother’s conduct and the children’s environment endangered their physical and emotional well‑being — and also held termination was in the children’s best interests based on the children’s repeated disruptions, their expressed desire to remain with relatives, and the relatives’ ability to provide permanency.

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 affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying appellant George Michael Welch attorney’s fees. Welch sold property to Felix and Summerlyn Lopez under an owner-financed contract. The Lopezes missed a May 1, 2023 payment but attempted to tender payment within the contract’s 91-day cure period; Welch rejected the tender and filed for foreclosure. The trial court found Welch prematurely sought foreclosure, unjustifiably refused payment, and reinstated the note upon payment of $22,221.92, denying fees because Welch was not the prevailing party. The appeals court held a temporary injunction and reinstatement did not confer prevailing-party status under section 38.001.

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 affirmed a trial-court judgment forfeiting $8,000 and a 2006 Harley-Davidson to the State under Texas civil forfeiture law. The owner, Chad Wade Spence, argued the trial court abused its discretion by forcing him to trial without material witnesses and that doing so violated his constitutional rights. The appellate court held Spence never properly requested subpoenas — he filed only informal witness lists and failed to complete the clerk’s subpoena request form — and therefore the trial court did not err in proceeding. The court also explained the right to compulsory process is a criminal right and does not apply in civil in rem forfeiture proceedings.

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 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.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights to his six-year-old son, Z.A.A., and leaving the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) as sole managing conservator. DFPS sought termination so the child’s maternal great-grandfather, who had provided long-term stable care and planned to adopt, could become permanent conservator. The court found by clear-and-convincing evidence that DFPS made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with father and that termination was in the child’s best interest given father’s repeated incarcerations, criminal history, lack of contact, and the child’s improved stability in the great-grandfather’s home.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in a trespass to try title suit. Houston International Management & Trade, Inc. (HIM) claimed ownership of 23 commercial lots by adverse possession, but a jury found HIM had not possessed the property peaceably and adversely for the statutory period and instead found a verbal management agreement existed between HIM and the record owners (the Peacock parties). The court held there was some evidence supporting the jury’s findings, rejected HIM’s challenges to JNOV, new trial claims, and factual-sufficiency complaints, and affirmed the hold that the Peacock parties own the properties.

The court affirmed the trial court’s revocation of Edward Bobby Martinez’s community supervision for indecency with a child by sexual contact and the imposition of his ten-year sentence, but it modified the judgment and bill of costs to remove language permitting future assessment of court-appointed attorney’s fees. The court held that Martinez’s refusal to submit to an instant-offense polygraph—required by his sex-offender treatment—constituted a violation of supervision because his Fifth Amendment privilege no longer applied to the final, adjudicated offense. Because Martinez has been found indigent, the court deleted any prospective attorney-fee assessment.

The First District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court’s final decree terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to four minor children. The parents argued lack of jurisdiction due to timing and challenged the sufficiency of evidence on reasonable efforts, predicate grounds, and best interest. The appellate court held the earlier trial commencement was not a sham, so jurisdiction was proper. The court found clear-and-convincing evidence that both parents engaged in conduct and allowed conditions that endangered the children (Family Code §161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E)) and that termination served the children’s best interests given parental substance abuse, violence, instability, probation violations, incarceration, and the children’s special needs.

A jury convicted Jordan Stephens of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated after police stopped his truck following a citizen’s 911 call reporting erratic driving. Officers observed signs of intoxication (odor of alcohol, glassy eyes), found empty alcohol bottles in the vehicle, and administered standardized field sobriety tests on which Stephens performed poorly. Stephens argued on appeal that errors in test administration and other explanations could account for observations, but the court found the combined evidence — eyewitness report of dangerous driving, officer observations, test performance, admissions about drinking, and refusal of blood testing — sufficient to support the conviction and affirmed.

The Court of Appeals of the Eighth District of Texas affirmed a trial court judgment that terminated the father's parental rights to his child, J.K.C. After a bench trial the trial court found termination was in the child's best interest and that the Department of Family and Protective Services proved grounds under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (N). Appellate counsel reviewed the record under Anders procedures and the court conducted an independent review, finding no non-frivolous issues to support reversal. The court also denied counsel's motion to withdraw, preserving the father's right to appointed counsel through further review.

The Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus relief directing the trial court to vacate its new-trial order and enter judgment on an 11–1 defense verdict in a medical-negligence suit. After a jury found Dr. Lapuerta not liable for Jose Torres’s eventual ray amputation, the trial court granted a new trial based on perceived error in a “loss of chance” jury instruction and possible juror confusion. The Supreme Court held the trial court misapplied controlling Texas law about loss-of-chance instructions, noted an improper juror letter that could have influenced the result, and concluded the record did not show the instruction probably caused an improper judgment.

The Court of Appeals of the Ninth District of Texas affirmed a county court’s final eviction judgment for landlord Matthew Twombly against pro se tenant Marcus Thirstrup. Thirstrup appealed the denial of his emergency motion for continuance filed the day of trial, claiming a medical inability to appear. The appellate court found the notice of appeal timely and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely motion because Thirstrup knew of his condition days earlier, failed to timely seek relief, did not contact the court, and did not appear at trial. A due-process challenge to the docket control order was not preserved for appeal.

The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Appellate District of Texas reviewed Dustin Eric Rubio’s appeal after he pleaded guilty and was convicted of multiple sexual offenses and related counts. Rubio received lengthy prison terms totaling consecutive and concurrent sentences. His appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. After an independent review of the record, the court agreed the appeal lacked any nonfrivolous grounds, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The opinion explains the court performed the required frivolity review under Anders and related precedent.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed Derek Joseph Daigneault’s conviction and life sentence for the murder of his cousin, Mandy Rose Reynolds. The court rejected Daigneault’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, reasoning that cumulative circumstantial evidence — including his possession of Mandy’s car and handgun, video and cell‑phone location data, purchases of items matching debris at the burn site, a high‑speed flight in Mandy’s car, and ballistic matches — supported a rational juror’s finding he shot Mandy and burned her body. The court also upheld the trial judge’s exclusion of proffered “alternate perpetrator” evidence as speculative and lacking the required nexus to the crime.

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment revoking Juan David Garcia’s deferred-adjudication community supervision for sexual assault of a child, adjudicating him guilty, and sentencing him to seven years’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating there were no arguable grounds for appeal; the court independently reviewed the record, found no reversible error, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. The opinion instructs counsel to notify Garcia of the decision and his right to seek discretionary review and explains procedural steps for further review.

The Texas court of appeals affirmed a trial court order terminating S.A.’s parental rights to her infant daughter, B.G.A.Y. The Department of Family and Protective Services removed the child after she tested positive for opioids and methadone at birth and after evidence of parental heroin and cocaine use. At trial the caseworker testified S.A. failed to complete treatment, had sporadic contact with the Department, did not visit during conservatorship, and did not submit to drug testing. The court found statutory grounds for termination and concluded termination was in the child’s best interest, given the parents’ substance abuse and the child’s stable foster placement with prospective adoptive caregivers.

The court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Rockport-Fulton Independent School District (RFISD). Don Jackson Construction appealed after RFISD sought a declaratory judgment that it retained governmental immunity from Don Jackson’s contract and related claims arising from Hurricane Harvey repairs arranged through the Regional Pool Alliance (RPA). The court held RFISD kept its immunity because there was no evidence that RFISD’s board or superintendent ever approved or voted to adopt the Interlocal Agreement or otherwise authorized the RPA to contract on RFISD’s behalf, so the contracts were not “properly executed” on RFISD’s behalf under Texas law.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment vacating an arbitration award in a workplace-injury dispute. Cynthia Love won a large award from an arbitrator after suing her former employer, Kaspar Ranch Hand Equipment, but the trial court vacated that award after Kaspar petitioned under the Federal Arbitration Act. The appellate court held vacatur was proper because the arbitrator failed to include factual findings and legal conclusions expressly required by the parties’ arbitration agreement, so she exceeded her contractual authority under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). The court rejected Love’s other challenges and affirmed denial of attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction and twelve-year sentence for Ashley Lynette Salinas following a revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision for burglary of a habitation. The dispute centered on whether prior trial counsel misinformed Salinas about which drug treatment program she had agreed to attend (Journey Recovery Center versus the county Substance Abuse Treatment Facility). The court found the record supported the trial court’s disbelief of Salinas’s claim because she signed an amended order explicitly requiring SATF participation and acknowledged the modification, so her ineffective-assistance claim failed under governing standards.