Opinion Library

Parker v. State

COA03

In Parker v. State, the Third Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could admit evidence of a defendant's past sexual misconduct with other children during a trial for a specific offense. The defendant, Christopher Scott Parker, argued that testimony from two other girls regarding similar abuse was unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded. The court analyzed the conflict using the 'Doctrine of Chances,' which suggests that it is statistically improbable for multiple, similar 'accidental' touchings or 'false' outcries to occur. Applying the Rule 403 balancing test, the court held that the evidence was highly probative of the defendant’s sexual interest and essential for resolving a 'he said, she said' credibility contest. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, allowing the extraneous evidence to stand.

Litigation Takeaway

"A pattern of misconduct is difficult to dismiss as a coincidence; in custody and protective order cases, the 'Doctrine of Chances' allows practitioners to use prior, even un-adjudicated, acts of abuse to prove a current danger to a child and defeat claims that an allegation is a one-time accident or a fabrication."

General trial issues

State v. Valeriano

COA08

The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an indictment, holding that a receiving court fails to acquire subject-matter jurisdiction when a transfer order is substantively defective. The conflict arose when a district court transferred cases to a county court using an 'Order of Certification and Transfer' that referenced an 'Exhibit A' containing the specific cases, but the exhibit was missing from the record. The court analyzed the transfer process as a mandatory jurisdictional chain rather than a mere clerical step, concluding that because the order failed to specifically identify the defendant or cause number, the receiving court was a 'legal stranger' to the litigation. The court held that the county court's jurisdiction was never properly invoked, rendering the court powerless to hear the case or allow the State to amend the paperwork.

Litigation Takeaway

"Never assume a transfer between courts was handled correctly by the clerk; if a transfer order fails to specifically identify your cause number or includes 'ghost' exhibits that aren't physically attached, the receiving court lacks jurisdiction, making any subsequent orders void and subject to collateral attack."

State v. Brady

COA09

In State v. Brady, a stepfather accused of child abuse voluntarily provided a video-recorded confession at a police station. Although he signed a form acknowledging his rights, he refused to sign the waiver and later expressed a desire to stop talking; however, the detective continued the 'conversational' interview. The trial court suppressed the later portion of the confession, but the Ninth Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court analyzed the 'custody' status, determining that because the defendant was free to leave and was not physically restrained, Miranda protections—including the right to terminate questioning—did not apply. Furthermore, the court held the statement was voluntary because there was no evidence of official coercion or overreaching that overbore the defendant's will.

Litigation Takeaway

"In noncustodial settings, the right to 'stop talking' is not legally protected the same way it is under arrest; statements made after a request to terminate an interview can remain fully admissible. For family law clients facing abuse allegations, 'cooperating' with law enforcement without counsel can lead to case-ending confessions that are admissible in both criminal trials and custody proceedings."

Family Violence & Protective Orders

State v. Mendez

COA08

In State v. Mendez, the State attempted to prosecute a misdemeanor offense in a county court following a grand jury indictment in a district court. However, the indictment was filed directly with the county clerk rather than the district clerk, and the district court's transfer order failed to include the specific list of cases being moved. The Eighth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas constitutional and statutory requirements for case transfers, concluding that jurisdiction is not fluid but must be formally invoked. Because the transfer process lacked a proper "paper trail"—specifically the initial filing with the district clerk and a complete transfer order—the court held that the county court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction and properly dismissed the case.

Litigation Takeaway

"Jurisdictional transfers between courts are not mere formalities; if a criminal family violence case is improperly transferred to a county court without a complete and certified paper trail, any subsequent orders or findings are void and cannot be used to trigger legal presumptions against a parent in a custody battle."

Lopezmejia v. State

COA05

After Jaime Lopezmejia was involved in a severe car accident, police arrested him without a warrant for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Lopezmejia moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the arrest was illegal because police had time to get a warrant and no emergency ('exigency') existed. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 14.03(a)(1), a warrantless arrest for a 'breach of the peace' at a suspicious place—such as a fresh accident scene where the driver shows signs of impairment—is valid even without proof of exigent circumstances.

Litigation Takeaway

"Texas courts have lowered the bar for validating warrantless DWI arrests at accident scenes by removing the 'exigency' requirement. For family law cases, this means that highly damaging evidence of a parent’s substance abuse or endangerment is much more likely to be admitted in court, regardless of whether the police obtained a warrant before the arrest."

Property Division

Moore v. 1789 Minerals Fund I, LP

COA06

In a dispute over mineral and royalty interests, the Texarkana Court of Appeals addressed whether time-barred claims regarding a decades-old tax foreclosure could be revived. The Appellants argued that a 2014 Sheriff’s Deed was ambiguous, conveying only specific wellbore interests rather than the entire mineral estate. The Appellees contended the claims were barred by the Texas Tax Code's strict two-year limitations period. The court analyzed Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.069, which permits the filing of otherwise time-barred counterclaims if they arise from the same transaction as the original suit. The court held that because the underlying interpleader action concerned property ownership, the Appellants' cross-claims were revived under the statute. Furthermore, the court found the deed contained a 'latent ambiguity' due to conflicting property descriptions, making summary judgment improper.

Litigation Takeaway

"A 'dead' claim isn't always gone; Texas law provides a procedural 'revival' for time-barred counterclaims and cross-claims in property disputes. If a party initiates a lawsuit regarding property characterization or ownership, the opposing party may have a 30-day window to assert claims for deed construction or title defects that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations."

Appeal and Mandamus

In Re Yaneth Lopez

COA13

In this SAPCR proceeding, Relator Yaneth Lopez sought a mandatory venue transfer under Texas Family Code § 155.201(b), arguing the child had resided in a different county for six months and that the opposing party failed to file a controverting affidavit. The trial court denied the motion. On review, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the request under the standard mandamus framework, noting that while venue transfers are often mandatory, the Relator still carries the burden of providing a sufficient record under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52 to prove a clear abuse of discretion. The Court held that because the Relator failed to provide an adequate record establishing the trial court's error or the lack of an adequate remedy on appeal, the petition for writ of mandamus must be denied.

Litigation Takeaway

"A mandatory venue statute does not guarantee mandamus relief; practitioners must meticulously curate the appellate record, including all supporting affidavits and hearing transcripts, to affirmatively prove the trial court's abuse of discretion."

Barreramaya v. State

COA05

In Barreramaya v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed an indecent assault conviction where the defendant argued the evidence was insufficient because the victim 'froze' instead of physically resisting. The court analyzed the 'freeze' response as a valid trauma reaction that does not imply consent, particularly in situations involving power imbalances. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the victim's testimony was legally sufficient to prove lack of consent. Additionally, the court ruled that the defendant's challenges to the 'trauma-informed' expert testimony were waived because he failed to make timely, specific objections during the trial.

Litigation Takeaway

"In cases involving family violence or sexual coercion, a victim's failure to physically resist (the 'freeze' response) does not prove consent. Furthermore, you must 'object or waive'; if a party fails to challenge the qualifications or scope of trauma-informed expert testimony during the trial, they cannot challenge its admissibility on appeal."

Appeal and Mandamus

In the Interest of K.M.C., A Child

COA05

In this SAPCR (Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship) appeal, the appellant filed their notice of appeal after the standard deadline but within the fifteen-day 'grace period' allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. The Dallas Court of Appeals issued a deficiency notice ordering the appellant to file a formal motion to extend time. When the appellant failed to file the motion or respond to the order, the court analyzed whether it could maintain jurisdiction. The court held that while a motion to extend is often implied when a notice is filed within the grace period, the failure to provide a 'reasonable explanation' when specifically ordered to do so results in a jurisdictional defect. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to comply with a court order.

Litigation Takeaway

"Appellate deadlines are strictly enforced; if you miss the initial filing window, you must file a formal Motion to Extend Time with a 'reasonable explanation' immediately, as ignoring a court’s directive to cure this deficiency will lead to the permanent dismissal of your appeal."

Appeal and Mandamus

IN RE TATIANA GUNN

COA05

In a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR), the Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from trial court actions. The Dallas Court of Appeals denied the petition and struck the filing because it failed to comply with fundamental procedural rules. Specifically, the Relator provided an unsworn and uncertified record, omitted the mandatory Rule 52.3(j) certification, and failed to redact sensitive information—such as social security numbers and the names of minors—in violation of privacy rules. The court held that strict compliance with appellate rules is required to obtain mandamus relief, and the failure to protect sensitive data warrants striking the petition entirely.

Litigation Takeaway

"Procedural perfection is a prerequisite for appellate relief; even a strong legal argument will be rejected if the record is not properly authenticated or if sensitive personal data is left unredacted."