Criminal Appeals

Juan Jose Quintero v. State of Texas
Cause No. 14-15-00252-CR
This case turns on the trial court’s error in not granting the client a hearing on his motion for new trial. The brief argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict, but the main argument is that the client deserved a hearing on his motion for new trial. Client’s trial attorney made an important error that needed to be brought to the trial court’s attention so that it could be raised on appeal. The trial court misunderstood what it means to “present” a motion for new trial under Rule 21 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Many attorneys under-appreciate the value of a motion for new trial. A motion for new trial is frequently the best way for an appellate lawyer to create issues after trial.

R.D.C. v. State of Texas
Cause No. 10-15-00172-CR
The State charged client with the criminal offense of aggravated assault. The criminal allegation included a claim that my client used a deadly weapon during the commission of this offense. The brief illustrates that the jury did not understand the law as it was issued to them and argues that when this was brought to the trial court’s attention that the trial court had a duty to correct this misunderstanding. Further the brief also attacks the manner in which the jury was polled after they rendered their verdict in this criminal case. The best way to resolve these issues would have been when the jury was present.

J.M.R. v. State of Texas
Cause Nos. 05-13-01735-CR/05-13-01736-CR
Brief argues that the trial court committed three errors in the trial. First the trial court erred by not determining that the “outcry” witness who testified was qualified to provide this outcry testimony. The State provided the names of many potential outcry witnesses but only one testified. There was no evidence that this witness met the the statutory requirements. Second, the brief argued that a material variance existed between the indictment and the conviction and therefore, the conviction was invalid. Finally, in an unusual circumstance, the brief argued that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. The best place to raise the issue of constitutionally-ineffective representation is in a post-conviction writ, but this is an unusual instance and was raised here for strategic reasons.

Sexual assault cases are some of the hardest cases to try and to appeal. But they also have some strict rules associated with them that give rise to potential appellate issues.

#SexualAssaultAppeal

D.F.W. v. State of Texas
Cause No. 05-13-01549-CR
Theft is a “crime of moral turpitude” and a theft conviction will have repercussions for the remainder of your life. This case concerned a charge for theft of metals, a special form of theft. The brief argues that the trial court erred by not granting the client an instructed verdict because the evidence was not sufficient for the state to have carried its burden. Prevailing on this issue would have been the best result for this criminal appeal. The brief also argues that the State’s evidence failed to establish the value of the items that the client was alleged to have stolen. 

Theft cases, like sex cases, are among the most important cases to appeal.

S.B. v. State of Texas
Cause No. 05-13-00106-CR
DWI appeals have developed a specialized law that applies, in some instances, only to them. This case concerns the validity of a search and seizure, specifically the blood taken from the client during the DWI investigation. The law on this has changed and it is important that the attorney who handles your case understand the new law.

E.F. v. State of Texas
Cause No. 05-14-00599-CR
We dismissed this appeal because we obtained a new trial for our client in the trial court. Many attorneys file a form motion for new trial that the trial courts provide. This form extends the deadline for the court reporter and the court clerk to file their records.  The form, however, does very little for the criminal defendant.  Almost all criminal appeals lawyers want the opportunity to file their own motion for new trial.

L.H. v. State of Texas
Cause Nos. 05-12-01329-CR/05-12-01336-CR

This brief was a long legal argument that contended that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict. If it can be asserted, legal sufficiency is one of the most desirable issues to argue.  The remedy for such an issue is that the verdict is reversed and judgment is usually rendered acquitting the defendant.  Here, the evidence did not establish that L.H., either individually or as a party, was guilty of the alleged offense.  Further, the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear custodial statements made by the defendant after he had invoked his right to counsel.

#robberyappeal

D.G. R. v. State of Texas
Cause No. 05-15-00550-CR

The brief presented three issues.  First that by failing to instruct the jury on all of the required elements that the trial court violated my client’s due process rights. This error permitted the jury to convict my client without unanimously finding that he committed each required element of the offense.  Second, the brief argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict.  Finally, the brief argued that the trial court erred when it failed to include the required legal definitions on the most critical aspect of the case.

This case is a good example of how to find appellate issues. The trial court attorney did not object to most of the evidence so it was my job as the criminal appeals lawyer to find error.   This case also included a detailed motion for new trial, but that issue was preserved for an 11.07 writ of habeas corpus.

#writofhabeascorpus