Court Filings

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences of Anthony Schultz after a jury found him guilty on multiple counts arising from a re-indictment: two counts of sexual assault of a child, three counts of improper relationship between educator and student, and one count of solicitation of prostitution of a minor. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting there were no arguable grounds for appeal; the court conducted an independent review of the record and found no reversible error. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and directed counsel to notify Schultz of his right to seek discretionary review.

The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant Luis Gerardo Lugo Pena’s conviction and fifteen-year sentence for aggravated robbery. Pena argued the trial court erred by not holding a hearing under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.22 to determine the voluntariness of his police statement and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found any failure to hold the hearing was harmless because the recorded statement was largely cumulative of other properly admitted evidence and there was no evidence the statement was involuntary; similarly, counsel’s conduct did not fall below professional standards or prejudice the defense.

The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a Texas divorce suit after the trial court recognized a prior Mexican divorce decree. The ex-husband filed the Mexican no-fault divorce and later presented the Mexican trial and appellate judgments in Texas, arguing the Texas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the parties were no longer married. The Texas appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving comity to the Mexican judgment, concluding the Mexican appellate court’s affirmation meant no valid marriage existed for a Texas court to dissolve, so dismissal was proper.

The Fifteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment that the federal Anti-Head Tax Act (AHTA), 49 U.S.C. § 40116(b)(4), preempts the Texas franchise tax as applied to American Airlines’ 2015 transportation revenues (baggage fees, passenger ticket sales, and freight). The trial court had awarded American a refund of $107,577.04 (plus interest) for baggage-fee tax and denied the Comptroller’s counterclaim to tax additional transportation revenues. The court held that, as applied to those revenues, the franchise tax functions as a tax on gross receipts and is therefore barred by the AHTA.

The First District of Texas affirmed Jason Jermaine Armster’s 55-year murder conviction and $10,000 fine. Armster challenged three rulings: denial of his motion to suppress a custodial statement, admission of testimony about past bad acts, and the trial court’s refusal to give a sudden-passion instruction at punishment. The court found the statement admissible because Armster himself reinitiated conversation after invoking counsel and then knowingly waived his right; any error admitting extraneous-act testimony was harmless given overwhelming evidence; and the record did not minimally support sudden passion as an affirmative mitigating finding.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to two children, Timothy (11) and Richard (5), and appointing the Department of Family and Protective Services as permanent managing conservator. The parents raised multiple challenges, including untimely trial, insufficiency of evidence on best interest and statutory predicate grounds, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a constitutional strict-scrutiny claim. The court found the trial was timely, the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination and best-interest findings, Father received effective counsel, and existing procedural and substantive protections were adequate to address his constitutional complaint.

The First District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s rulings in favor of the lender (Cardinal) and the appraisal company (CFour). Gaston bought a house that had a septic tank and well, but the appraisal incorrectly listed public water and sewer. The trial court granted summary judgment to Cardinal and CFour and Cardinal later nonsuited its third-party and cross claims. The appellate court held Gaston failed to raise a fact issue on negligent misrepresentation because she could not justifiably rely on the appraisal: seller disclosures, FHA/HUD warnings, the appraisal’s stated intended user (the lender), and Gaston’s own home inspection undercut her reliance claim. The court also held the nonsuit was effective when filed and did not prejudice other parties.

The court of appeals reviewed Billy Jack Barrera’s conviction for felony cruelty to animals after his lawyer filed an Anders brief asking to withdraw because the appeal was frivolous. The record shows Barrera was convicted by a jury based on eyewitness testimony and photographic and veterinary evidence of injuries inflicted with a machete. After conducting an independent review of the record, the court concluded there were no arguable grounds for appeal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s four-year sentence and costs.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed John Paul Ortega’s conviction and life-without-parole sentence for capital murder in the deaths of Iliana Garza and her unborn child. Ortega challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to the unborn child’s death and argued the jury charge was erroneous for including self-defense in the abstract but not in the application paragraph. The court found the evidence sufficient because Ortega knew Garza was pregnant and a jury could infer he knew killing her was reasonably certain to kill the fetus. The court also found the charge error non-egregious given the evidence and arguments, so the conviction stands.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a Midland County trial court’s final divorce decree awarding spousal maintenance to Aletha Marie Dominguez. Oscar Dominguez argued (1) the maintenance award was unsupported and (2) the decree improperly limited his ability to seek future modification. The appeals court found the evidence, including testimony, financial statements, and the trial court’s findings, supported the determination of Aletha Marie’s minimum reasonable needs ($5,200/month) and that she lacked sufficient property at dissolution. The court also held any perceived restriction on seeking modification was moot or a permissible discretionary periodic-review provision.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court order admitting Kara Watson’s will to probate as a muniment of title. The will was offered about nine years after Kara’s 2014 death; an interested party argued the proponent was in default for failing to probate within the four-year statutory period. After a bench trial the court found the proponent, Kara’s daughter Mary Gale, exercised reasonable diligence and had valid excuses (including caregiving duties, serious health problems, and lack of awareness of the need to probate). The appellate court held the evidence was legally sufficient to support that finding and affirmed.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed Fred Gonzales’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and the resulting 25-year sentence. Gonzales argued his trial lawyer was ineffective for not showing him a dash-cam video before he rejected a misdemeanor plea offer and that the trial court erred by refusing a hearing on his motion for new trial. The court found the record did not affirmatively show deficient performance, and Gonzales failed to prove prejudice under the standard for plea-negotiation claims. The court also held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a hearing on the motion for new trial.

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed Markeith Terrell Oliver’s conviction and ten-year sentence for unlawful carrying of a weapon by a felon. Oliver filed a consolidated brief raising a single appellate point that did not challenge the conviction in this particular appellate cause. Because the sole point of error concerned Oliver’s other cases and raised no issue about the conviction at hand, the court found there was nothing to review and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court issued a brief memorandum opinion denying relief in this cause.

A jury convicted Markeith Terrell Oliver of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and the trial court sentenced him to nine years in prison. On appeal Oliver argued the trial court should have instructed the jury that witness Carlina McComb was an accomplice as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals held McComb was not an accomplice as a matter of law because she was not a felon at the time and her conviction for unlawful carrying was not a lesser-included offense of Oliver’s charge; the evidence showed separate, parallel possession of different weapons. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed Markeith Terrell Oliver’s conviction and six-month sentence for attempted tampering with physical evidence. Oliver filed a notice of appeal and later submitted a single consolidated brief raising one point of error, but that point did not challenge the tampering-with-evidence conviction at issue in this appeal. Because the brief contained no argument directed to the conviction in this cause, the appellate court found there was nothing to review and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Manuel Mata’s conviction for interference with public duties (a Class B misdemeanor) following his arrest during a police DWI investigation. Mata argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied, that the evidence was insufficient, and that the jury charge improperly used the word “belligerent.” The court held Mata waived the as-applied constitutional challenge, found the evidence legally sufficient because he approached officers, recorded a patrol computer displaying confidential data, and repeatedly refused to obey a clearly established boundary, and rejected charge-error claims as invited or harmless.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Derwin Dewayne Bell’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Bell was tried for two counts; a jury convicted him on Count I (threatening Robert Curry by shooting at him) and the court declared a mistrial on Count II. Bell argued (1) the jury charge improperly defined “firearm” and (2) the evidence was insufficient. The court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence (eyewitness IDs, shell casings, vehicle damage, sign-in sheet, and other testimony) was sufficient and that any error in including a nonstatutory definition of “firearm” did not cause egregious harm or deprive him of a fair trial.

The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed Derwin Dewayne Bell’s convictions for three counts of possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver (methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine) after a jury trial. The court reviewed sufficiency-of-the-evidence and jury-charge complaints. It held the evidence — including controlled-substance testing, large quantities and packaging consistent with distribution, scales, guns, cash, matching bags found in a vehicle and a residence linked to Bell, social-media and mail evidence, and his gang leadership — provided affirmative links supporting possession and intent. The court also held the trial court properly omitted a DEA-registration instruction because Bell bore the burden to produce any exemption evidence and did not do so or request such an instruction.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of appellants' request for a second temporary injunction seeking to stop the homeowners association's election to amend its declaration to allow sale of a subdivision park. Appellants (residents) had a prior temporary injunction preventing sale of Thrush Ridge Park and sued for declaratory and injunctive relief; the Association held an election and appellants sought to enjoin it. The appeals court concluded the record lacked the evidentiary exhibits from the injunction hearing, so the appellants failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s May 2024 order terminating Mother C.A.’s parental rights to infant G.M.L. The Department of Family and Protective Services had removed the children after repeated concerns about Mother’s substance use, hazardous home conditions, and a domestic-violence incident. The appeals court held that the Department gave fair notice and presented clear-and-convincing evidence that it made reasonable reunification efforts and that a continuing danger remained in Mother’s home, supporting termination and appointment of the Department as permanent managing conservator.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's civil commitment of Jose Arredondo, Jr. after a jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a sexually violent predator. Arredondo appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by refusing a jury instruction telling jurors to treat expert testimony "just like any other testimony." The appellate court held the requested instruction would effectively single out the State's sole expert and thus improperly comment on the weight of the evidence, contrary to Davidson v. Wallingford and Texas procedural rules, so the refusal was not an abuse of discretion.

The First District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights to her nine-year-old twins and awarding sole managing conservatorship to the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). The court reviewed an accelerated appeal from a bench trial and found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to show the mother knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in endangering conditions (unsanitary, no utilities, presence of feces and urine, reports of physical abuse) and that termination was in the children’s best interest. The court relied on the children’s improved stability and care in their foster home, the mother’s criminal history, repeated positive drug tests, failure to complete services, and prior dangerous living conditions to support its decision.

The First Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a trial court's modification of a 2016 custody order that named Carolyn Pena sole managing conservator and restricted George E. Saldana’s visitation. Saldana, representing himself, argued the trial was void because a recusal motion was pending, he lacked adequate notice of the trial, and his arrest and detention around trial made the proceedings unfair. The court held that a “tertiary recusal” statute allowed the trial judge to proceed, that the record shows Saldana had actual notice more than 45 days before trial, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial despite the arrest and security incidents.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's adjudication of guilt and 14-year sentence for Gaige Porter after a hearing on the State's motion to adjudicate his deferred-adjudication community supervision. Appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders, and the court independently reviewed the record, finding no reversible error. Because the trial court's written judgment did not match its oral findings, the appellate court reformed the judgment to reflect that Porter violated supervision by contacting the complainant, leaving the state without permission, and removing his ankle monitor, then affirmed as reformed and granted counsel's withdrawal.

The First District of Texas affirmed the divorce decree in Ada U. Oguamanam v. Tony Oguamanam. Ada argued on appeal that she was harmed because the trial court signed findings of fact and conclusions of law that she did not receive notice of, preventing her from timely requesting additional findings. The court held that Ada failed to show the required injury — she could have requested additional findings after learning of them or sought abatement but did not — and that the proposed additional findings she identified were largely evidentiary or unnecessary to decide the controlling issues. The judgment is affirmed.