Court Filings

The First District of Texas dismissed appellant Dayanara Danae Baker’s attempted appeal of a 2010 prostitution conviction because the notice of appeal was filed fifteen years after judgment and the trial-court certification from 2010 stated she had no right to appeal. Baker, pro se, also sought appointment of counsel and asked the court to consider waiving fees to aid access to employment, housing, and records, but the court explained an untimely appeal is not a proper vehicle for fee relief. Because the court lacked jurisdiction over the belated appeal, the appeal and pending motions were dismissed as moot.

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 considered an appeal from a trial court order that granted Tonya Hill’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Steven and Rayma Benedict’s petition to modify the parent-child relationship. Because the trial court’s order did not address Hill’s separate request for attorney’s fees and expressly stated it was making no ruling on relief requested by Hill, the appellate court found the order’s finality ambiguous. The appellate court therefore abated and remanded the case to the trial court for clarification or entry of a final order and set a deadline for supplemental records to be filed in the appellate court.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a of a private-nuisance lawsuit filed by nearby landowners seeking injunctive relief and damages to stop construction and operation of a planned 200-megawatt lithium-ion battery storage facility on neighboring property. The court held the landowners’ pleading—alleging imminent risk from thermal-runaway fires, inadequate local emergency response, factual allegations of lease and tax-abatement steps, and concrete threats of harm—sufficient to state a cognizable negligence-based nuisance claim and to seek prospective injunctive relief. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals granted mandamus relief to Meredith Johnson (Mother) after the trial court denied her motion to compel the production of the father’s federal income tax returns for the past two years in a child-support case. The appeals court held that Family Code § 154.063 requires parties in child-support proceedings to produce two years of tax returns and other financial information, the returns are relevant to determining net resources and above-guideline support, and the trial court’s denial was a clear abuse of discretion. The court ordered the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion and to compel production of the tax returns.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied a petition asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus to control proceedings in a Travis County case. The court also lifted a previously entered stay of the underlying trial-court proceedings. The court issued a short memorandum opinion denying relief under the appellate rules and returning the case to the trial-court process, without further comment or substantive analysis in this brief disposition.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied DNOW L.P.'s petition for a writ of mandamus and denied as moot its emergency stay motion. DNOW filed the petition, record, and emergency motion on April 6, 2026, but the court found the filings did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k) and 52.7 and determined DNOW had not shown entitlement to mandamus relief under rule 52.8(a). The underlying state-court matters concern Mattea Mansell v. DNOW, L.P., pending in Zavala County district court.

The Court of Appeals (Eighth District, Texas) reviewed sanctions entered against Genevieve Glasgow in a post-divorce civil case brought against her former husband. The court held the trial court abused its discretion in awarding monetary attorney’s fees because the evidence did not meet the required showing of reasonable and necessary fees, reversed the portion awarding fees, affirmed the remaining sanctions (including dismissal with prejudice of remaining claims), and remanded solely for redetermination of attorney’s fees. The court found the declarations and spreadsheets submitted did not detail particular services, who performed them, when, or the time reasonably required.

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 Texas Department of Insurance filed an original proceeding in the Seventh Court of Appeals to challenge the denial of its motion to quash a subpoena in an underlying Lubbock County case. While the petition was pending, the Department and the plaintiff (Real Party in Interest, Traci Johnson) resolved their discovery dispute by a Rule 11 agreement, and the Department filed a notice that it intended to withdraw its petition. Because the parties settled and the relator withdrew its challenge, the court dismissed the Department's original proceeding without deciding the subpoena issue on the merits.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed a pro se appeal filed on behalf of corporate entities because a nonlawyer cannot represent entities in court. After notifying the parties that an attorney must represent the corporations, counsel who filed an amended notice of appeal withdrew and no new attorney entered an appearance or filed a brief. The court concluded the entities failed to comply with directives to obtain counsel and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to follow court orders.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed Scott Crow’s appeal from his 2015 guilty plea and twenty-year sentence for third-degree felony driving while intoxicated. Crow filed a second pro se notice of appeal nearly ten years after sentencing, which the court found untimely under the appellate rules. The court also relied on the trial-court certification showing this was a plea-bargain case in which Crow waived any right of appeal. Because the notice was untimely and the certification precludes an appeal, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal on April 9, 2026. Rush Truck Centers of Texas, L.P. initially appealed a trial-court judgment but later obtained full relief when the trial court granted its post-judgment omnibus motion and entered a take-nothing judgment; Rush Truck moved to dismiss its portion of the appeal, which the court granted. The court also dismissed Ronald Joe Andrus, Jr.’s portion of the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to follow court directives after his counsel did not respond to requests, failed to pay filing fees, and failed to request or pay for the clerk’s record.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed an interlocutory appeal by Robert Berleth and his firm challenging the trial court’s denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss under Texas Rule 91a. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because Berleth, a court‑appointed turnover receiver, is not a "governmental unit" under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §§ 51.014(a)(8) and 101.001(3), so he cannot bring an interlocutory appeal. The court relied on statutory text and precedent distinguishing uniquely governmental organs from privately appointed receivers whose authority is limited to satisfying a specific judgment.

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 reviewed Jason Padilla’s bench-trial convictions for three counts of sexual assault of a child, one count of indecency with a child, and one count of possession of a controlled substance. The court held that testimony about prior minor acts of violence in the household was admissible to explain the victim’s delayed reporting and did not unduly prejudice Padilla. However, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove the seized residue was cocaine (no lab analysis or expert testimony), reversed the possession conviction, rendered an acquittal on that count, and modified one judgment to correct the statutory citation.

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 Court dismissed Bobbie Hall Wooldridge’s appeal of a guilty plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine because the trial court certified this was a plea-bargain case in which Wooldridge had no right to appeal. Wooldridge pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement and received the agreed three-year sentence. The appellate court found no statutory or procedural basis to continue the appeal, noting the certification was signed by the defendant, defense counsel, and the judge, and that the record supported the certification.

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 Seventh Court of Appeals abated and remanded an appeal from an order terminating J.P.'s parental rights because the reporter's record, due March 16, 2026, was not filed and the reporter failed to respond to the court's inquiries. The appellate court directed the trial court to determine what remains to complete the record, why the reporter has not completed it, how much time is needed, and whether a substitute reporter is necessary. The trial court must ensure admitted exhibits are included, address the reporter's repeated late filings, make written findings, and file a supplemental clerk's record by April 17, 2026.

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 Texas Third Court of Appeals granted a joint motion by AusPro Enterprises, L.P. and MMK Holdings, L.P. (doing business as Planet K) and the City of Cedar Park to abate (pause) the appeal for 30 days so the parties can finalize a settlement that requires city council approval. The court ordered the parties to file either a motion to dismiss, a motion to reinstate, or a status report (or a motion to extend the abatement) by May 8, 2026. The appeal remains abated until further court order.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Stephen Kay Thorp Jr.’s criminal appeal because the trial-court certification states this was a plea-bargain case and the defendant has no right to appeal. The clerk’s record confirms the sentence did not exceed the prosecutor’s recommendation and there is no written pretrial motion, trial-court permission to appeal, or statute authorizing the appeal. The court gave Thorp an opportunity to supply an amended certification but none was filed, so the court dismissed the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d).

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Samantha Ann Marie Vargas's appeal challenging a December 8, 2025 order that modified her community supervision to include a 30-day jail sanction (with credit for time served). The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an order that alters conditions of community supervision, relying on controlling precedent. The panel ordered dismissal after Vargas failed to show a basis for continuing the appeal when asked to show cause.