Court Filings

The Court of Appeals dismissed Ethan Frederick Hill’s appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.072 because his notice of appeal was untimely. Hill filed a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal under Rule 306a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming late receipt of the trial court’s December 1, 2025 order. The court held the civil-rule extension does not apply to criminal appeals from article 11.072 denials, the applicable deadline was 30 days under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Hill’s notice was filed late, so the court lacked jurisdiction and denied the extension motion.

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 dismissed Adelide Perez Ybarra’s appeal of the denial of her petition for expunction because she failed to file the required docketing statement and failed to pay the $205 filing fee despite being notified twice and given deadlines. The clerk first warned her that both were due by March 2, 2026; after noncompliance the clerk extended a final deadline of March 16, 2026. Because neither requirement was satisfied, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to follow the clerk’s directives.

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 Court of Appeals dismissed Johnny Lamonte Phillips’s appeal for want of prosecution because he failed to pay the required clerk’s record costs and filing fee and did not make payment arrangements or respond to the court’s notices. The clerk’s record was due December 22, 2025, but was not filed. The court notified Phillips in March 2026 about unpaid clerk’s-record costs and earlier instructed him in January and February 2026 to remit a $205 filing fee; he did not comply within the time allowed, so the court dismissed the appeal under its rules.

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.

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 reversed a post-answer default judgment awarding over $27 million to William Carrell and remanded for further proceedings. The judgment was entered after appellants’ counsel withdrew days before trial and appellants did not appear. The court held appellants’ failure to appear was due to mistake or accident (not conscious indifference) because there was no reliable evidence appellants received actual notice of the trial setting after counsel’s withdrawal and substitute counsel lacked authority/adequate time to prepare. Because the lack of notice defeated the default, a new trial was required.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District granted an agreed motion to dismiss an appeal brought by Sandra Flores and Anita M. Flores against Propel Tax and Javier Hernandez. The parties told the court they resolved their dispute and asked for dismissal. The court granted the motion under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, dismissed the appeal, taxed the appellate costs to the appellants, and declined to consider any motion for rehearing because the appeal was dismissed at the parties' request.

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 court construed Ignacio Lara Jr.'s pro se filing as a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's order for a competency examination. The court explained mandamus standards and the requirements for such petitions under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, including the need to show a ministerial duty and an inadequate legal remedy and to supply an adequate record. Because Lara failed to meet procedural and record requirements and did not show entitlement to relief, the court denied the petition for writ of mandamus without issuing an opinion for publication.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District dismissed Genie Delia Cavazos’s pro se appeal for want of prosecution after she repeatedly failed to comply with the clerk’s requests to pay the filing fee and to cure defects in her notice of appeal. The court sent five notices between October 28, 2025 and March 19, 2026 but received no response. Because Cavazos did not diligently prosecute the appeal or follow procedural rules, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellee’s motion to dismiss as moot.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District dismissed Constance Benavides’s appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 of Cameron County because she failed to meet appellate procedural requirements. The clerk’s record was overdue, and Benavides did not file the required docketing statement or inform the court that she paid or arranged to pay the clerk’s fee or was entitled to proceed without payment. After notice and a court order giving her ten days to comply, she did not respond, so the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and a court order.

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 Court of Appeals affirmed most of a trial court’s April 19, 2024 agreed order in a suit to modify the parent–child relationship between Russell Lerner and Geraldine Schott, but removed a requirement that Lerner post a $25,000 bond before filing any future pleadings. The court held Lerner cannot appeal terms he expressly agreed to at the April 9, 2024 hearing (such as lifting geographic restrictions, dismissal of pending motions, child-support and fee provisions), and he waived claims about findings of fact and docket management. The bond requirement was improper because the court never followed Texas statutory procedures for declaring a party a vexatious litigant.

The First District of Texas granted Radial Power Asset, LLC’s unopposed motion to dismiss its appeal after the parties settled all disputes and the settlement was finalized. Because the appeal became moot and the appellee did not oppose dismissal, the court vacated the trial court’s judgment, dismissed the appeal, and denied as moot any other pending motions. The court relied on precedent and the appellate rules that require vacatur and dismissal when a case becomes moot.

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 Court of Appeals denied a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Ryen Michelle Staggers seeking to vacate and stay enforcement of a March 27, 2026 temporary order from a Harris County family-court case. The appellate court concluded Staggers failed to provide the mandatory mandamus record or appendix that includes a certified copy of the challenged trial court order, as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the court could not review the order, it found she had not shown entitlement to mandamus relief and therefore denied the petition and dismissed pending motions as moot.

The First District of Texas denied a pro se petitioner Ryen Michelle Staggers' request for a writ of mandamus and emergency stay. Staggers asked this Court to stay and vacate a March 27, 2026 trial-court order in an underlying child‑protection case, alleging extrinsic fraud and due-process violations. The appellate court declined relief because the mandamus record and appendix did not include the required certified copy of the March 27, 2026 order, preventing review of her claims. The court therefore denied the petition and dismissed any pending motions as moot.

The First District of Texas denied a mandamus petition filed by May Kue and Youssef Ezzat challenging a county court’s final judgment in an eviction case. The relators asked the court to issue an emergency stay blocking a writ of possession, further proceedings in the underlying eviction, and release of registry funds. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and all related emergency motions and stay requests without granting the requested relief.

The Texas Court of Appeals (First District) denied Kevin Henry's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a trial court order that granted an opponent's motion to compel discovery in a pending civil case (Derrick Dees v. Kevin Henry et al.). The appellate court concluded mandamus relief was not warranted and dismissed any outstanding motions as moot. The opinion is a short per curiam memorandum without extended factual or legal discussion, and it leaves the trial court's order intact.

The First Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency stay filed by Heather J. Taylor and Mad Hat Maven, LLC. Relators had challenged a district court's March 3, 2026 order allowing substituted service of subpoenas and a March 31, 2026 enforcement order compelling their depositions and production of documents. The appellate court declined to disturb the trial court’s orders and refused to stay the depositions scheduled for April 9, 2026, effectively leaving the trial court’s discovery and enforcement directives in place.

The Texas First Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Anant Kumar Tripati challenging a trial court order that granted a motion to dismiss in an underlying suit against YESCARE Corp. and others. The appellate court concluded mandamus relief was not warranted and dismissed any pending motions as moot. The opinion is brief and issued per curiam, listing the underlying district-court cause and judge but providing no extended reasoning or factual detail.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Esdras Pineda’s suit against his workers’ compensation carrier, National Specialty Insurance Company, and remanded for further proceedings. The trial court had granted the insurer’s plea to the jurisdiction, finding Pineda’s pro se petition did not show he exhausted administrative remedies or identify the appeals-panel decisions that aggrieved him. The appeals court held the defects in Pineda’s petition were curable because the insurer’s plea and attached evidence showed Pineda had appealed the administrative law judge’s decisions to the appeals panel and that the appeals panel allowed those decisions to become final, so Pineda should be allowed to amend his pleadings.