Opinion Library

Appeal and Mandamus

Castillo v. Martinez

COA08

In Castillo v. Martinez, the Appellants attempted to appeal a trial court's dismissal order several months after the deadline, arguing that the underlying judgment was 'void' and that a subsequent order denying their motion to vacate restarted the appellate clock. The El Paso Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, which dictates strict timelines for filing a notice of appeal. The court held that even if a judgment is legally defective or void, it still becomes final for purposes of appeal and triggers the mandatory 30- or 90-day filing window. Because the Appellants failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the original judgment, the court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, ruling that a party cannot circumvent appellate deadlines by simply labeling a judgment void.

Litigation Takeaway

"A judgment's alleged 'voidness' does not stop the appellate clock; practitioners must file their notice of appeal within the standard 30- or 90-day window following the final decree, as a later order denying a motion to vacate will not restart the timetable for a direct appeal."

Evidence

Julio Chapa v. The State of Texas

COA13

In Chapa v. State, a defendant appealed his convictions for indecency with a child, asserting that the evidence was legally insufficient because it relied on inconsistent child testimonies and lacked physical medical findings. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, ruling that the jury has the sole authority to weigh witness credibility and resolve conflicts in evidence. The court found that the combination of the children’s in-court testimony, their immediate 'outcry' disclosures to their adoptive mother, and consistent patient histories recorded in SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) records provided a sufficient basis for the jury's verdict.

Litigation Takeaway

"In family law cases involving abuse allegations—such as custody disputes or protective orders—physical evidence is not a prerequisite for a finding of abuse; consistent child disclosures coupled with corroborating medical narratives can withstand credibility attacks and support significant restrictions on parental rights."

Appeal and Mandamus

In the Interest of I.H. and K.H., Children

COA13

In this Texas appellate case, an appellant (J.W.) filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal and requested that the court tax costs against the party who incurred them. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(d), which establishes that, absent an agreement between the parties, the court must tax costs against the appellant. Because J.W. did not provide evidence of an agreement with the appellee regarding costs, the court denied the request to deviate from the default rule. However, because J.W. had filed a valid Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs under Rule 20.1, the court held that no costs would actually be assessed. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was shielded from costs due to their indigent status.

Litigation Takeaway

"When seeking a voluntary dismissal of an appeal, an appellant cannot unilaterally decide how court costs are distributed; without a formal agreement from the other party, the appellant is responsible for costs by default. However, maintaining a current Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs is a critical protection for indigent clients, as it overrides the default taxation rule and prevents the assessment of appellate fees."

T & T Construction and Development v. Delossantos

COA14

T & T Construction and Development (T&T) sued multiple defendants alleging misrepresentations regarding sewer and water services for a property purchase. The defendants filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment specifically attacking the element of 'reliance.' T&T subsequently amended its petition to swap theories for fraud-by-nondisclosure and negligent misrepresentation, then argued the summary judgment motion was ineffective because it did not explicitly address the newly added claims. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed whether a no-evidence motion can reach later-added causes of action that share common elements. The court held that because 'reliance' was an essential element of both the original and the newly pleaded claims, and because the claims arose from the same factual nucleus, the no-evidence motion was broad enough to cover the amended petition. The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims because T&T failed to produce evidence of reliance.

Litigation Takeaway

"You cannot avoid a no-evidence motion for summary judgment by simply amending your pleadings to new legal theories if those new claims share a common essential element (like reliance) already targeted by the motion; when faced with such a motion, you must provide actual evidence rather than relying on procedural maneuvers."

Family Violence & Protective Orders

Foley v. State

COA10

In Foley v. State, the Tenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a conviction for failure to stop and render aid requires proof that a driver had subjective knowledge they struck a person. The defendant argued he was unaware he had hit a cyclist due to poor lighting and road conditions. The court analyzed Texas Transportation Code § 550.021 and clarified that the State must only prove the driver knew an accident occurred and that the circumstances were such that injury or death was "reasonably likely." Holding that the extensive vehicle damage and debris field created a "reasonable likelihood" of injury, the court affirmed the conviction, ruling that a defendant\'s self-serving denial of knowledge does not override objective evidence.

Litigation Takeaway

"A party\'s subjective claim of ignorance regarding harm can be overcome by objective evidence; in family law cases involving reckless conduct or vehicular altercations, focus on proving that the circumstances made injury "reasonably likely" rather than trying to prove the perpetrator\'s internal state of mind."

Termination of Parental Rights

In the Interest of F.H. and D.K.A.

COA01

In this case, a mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the evidence was insufficient because her related criminal charges had been dismissed and she had partially participated in her service plan. The First Court of Appeals rejected these arguments, focusing on the mother's long-term 'course of conduct.' The court analyzed her history of neglectful supervision, her failure to follow psychiatric recommendations, and her ongoing substance abuse—including positive tests for cocaine and marijuana. Ultimately, the court held that the mother’s persistent pattern of instability and failure to complete court-ordered services provided enough evidence of endangerment to justify termination in the children's best interest.

Litigation Takeaway

"Victory in criminal court does not guarantee victory in a CPS case; family courts look at the 'totality of the circumstances,' meaning that a history of neglect and a failure to strictly follow every psychiatric or drug-related recommendation in a service plan can lead to the permanent loss of parental rights."

David Hobbs Ray v. State

COA02

David Hobbs Ray pleaded guilty to multiple counts of child pornography. While the trial court orally sentenced him to five years of confinement for "Count Ten," the subsequently signed written judgment reflected a ten-year sentence. On appeal, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed the conflict between the oral rendition and the written decree, applying the long-standing Texas rule that an oral pronouncement controls. The court held that appellate courts possess the authority under Rule 43.2 to reform written judgments to "speak the truth" when the record provides the necessary data, and modified Ray’s sentence back to the five years originally ordered from the bench.

Litigation Takeaway

"The court’s oral ruling is the ultimate authority; family law practitioners should always obtain a transcript of the judge’s rendition to ensure the final written decree is accurate and to provide the necessary evidence to correct clerical errors on appeal."

Ex parte Paul Daniel Dedrick

COA02

In a prosecution for child sexual abuse, the defense was granted a mistrial after the State disclosed bodycam footage mid-trial that it had previously represented was unavailable. The defendant subsequently sought habeas relief, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred a retrial. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed whether the prosecutor's late disclosure was intentionally designed to 'goad' the defense into moving for a mistrial. The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, holding that because the delay resulted from technical errors, agency communication failures, and ransomware issues—rather than a deliberate tactical ambush—double jeopardy did not bar the State from retrying the case.

Litigation Takeaway

"When seeking 'nuclear' remedies like striking pleadings or excluding evidence due to late-disclosed government records (such as bodycam or CPS files), you must build a record of deliberate gamesmanship; mere bureaucratic dysfunction or technical errors will typically only result in a continuance or fee-shifting rather than case-ending sanctions."

Evidence

John William Reblin v. The State of Texas

COA13

In a criminal appeal arising from long-term sexual-abuse allegations involving a minor, the defendant challenged key evidentiary rulings: (1) admission of the child’s first detailed disclosure to the first adult he told as a Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.072 “outcry” statement, and (2) admission of text messages containing inculpatory, apologetic statements that the defendant claimed were inadequately authenticated or too ambiguous to be probative. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals applied the abuse-of-discretion standard and focused on whether the trial court built the required predicate record—especially through the outcry hearing and sponsoring-witness testimony. For the outcry, the court emphasized that the trial court properly identified the qualifying outcry witness (the first adult recipient) and limited the admissible outcry to the child’s first detailed description of the sexual abuse (including frequency and the transactional “gifts” component), which satisfied article 38.072’s requirements. For the texts, the court held the messages were sufficiently authenticated under Texas Rule of Evidence 901 through the recipient’s testimony identifying the participants and providing contextual anchors tying the content to the abuse disclosure and relationship events; the court also accepted that admissions can be contextual and need not be a full confession to be relevant. Finally, even assuming some evidentiary misstep, the court concluded any error was not reversible under the applicable harm analysis given the strength of the remaining, layered evidence. The convictions were affirmed.

Litigation Takeaway

"In child-abuse-driven SAPCR/protective-order litigation, win the evidentiary war by (1) anchoring the case in the earliest detailed disclosure and presenting it through the cleanest “first adult told” witness, (2) laying tight foundation for texts/screenshots with a sponsoring witness plus context that ties ambiguous apologies to the conduct at issue, and (3) building redundancy so any one evidentiary ruling is unlikely to sink the result on appeal."

In the Matter of E.A., a Juvenile

COA10

In this case, a sixteen-year-old (E.A.) challenged a juvenile court’s decision to transfer his murder prosecution to an adult criminal court. E.A. argued that his below-average IQ and lack of a formal juvenile record should have kept him in the juvenile system. The Tenth Court of Appeals analyzed the transfer under Texas Family Code § 54.02, specifically evaluating the minor’s 'sophistication' and 'prior history.' The court determined that E.A.’s actions—such as hiding the murder weapon and fleeing the scene—demonstrated a legal sophistication and an understanding of right and wrong that outweighed his test scores. Furthermore, the court held that a history of nearly thirty school fights and numerous police visits to his home constituted a 'prior history,' even without formal arrests. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to waive jurisdiction and transfer E.A. to criminal court.

Litigation Takeaway

"In juvenile transfer proceedings, 'sophistication' is a legal determination based on conduct—like concealing evidence—rather than just an IQ score; additionally, school disciplinary records and non-arrest police contacts can be used to establish a 'prior history' sufficient to justify adult prosecution."