tcdla - Voice For The Defense Online

determining tl~e finality of a conviction, for enl~mcement purposes, is
tl~e date the judgment is signed and not the date of the appellate court's
nlandate.
2. The Court of ilppeds erred in holding that the e\idence wa
legally sufficient to support the finding of t~ue to the enl~ancement
pa~xgrapl~.
0542-01 CHAW, RICHARD, JR. 09/12/01 S Potter Agpvated
1ka111t (034Uf692)
2. If indeed the trial court's procedure um improper was the error
in proceeding with elwen juro~x "S~IIIC~II~" error defying 11x111
analysis, as the Co~ia ofilppeals held?
0587-01 McCLINTON, JK, HAROLD 09/12/01 S Harris Possession
of Cocaine (038///747)
1. Does a trial court have the power to refor111 a defendant's sentence
after tl~e defendant has heady begw to sene the sentence?
0598-01 MOTILW, FRJDDIE 09/12/01 S Harris Capital Murder
(038///821)
I. Does harmful error under Rule 44.2(b) of the mles of appellate
procedure result from theintroduction of \ictin related evidence at the
guilt stage 1'11en that e\idcncc is it~~~ocuous and failed to mislead or
colh~se the july in making its determination of whether the Appellant
had the specific intent to kill?
2. Should a Court of Appeals examine the ove~wl~eh~ung evidence
of guilt in deterwining 11arn1 i~nder Rule of Appellate Procedure
44.2(b)?
3. Wlwe there is legdly md factually sulficie~it eddencc to support
a conviction for capital n~urdcr, does the adnussian of irrelevant yet
benign victin~ related evidence during the guilt phnse constitute
revessible error under Rule 44.2(b) of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure?
4. Does inadmissible evidence h~troduced at the guilt stage violate
a defendant's substmtid rigl~ts under Rule 44.2(b) of the Rules of
Appellate procedure w11c11 there is strong e~idence of the Appellant's
goilt, the contlxdicto~y evidence is weak, selt-sen4ng, aud not belie\,-
able, and the outcome of the case \\,auld not have changed had the
improper evidence not bee11 admitted?
0746-01 \T'lI,LOYER, CMG JOMTHON 09/12/01 S \Vaiier Agg.
Sexual i\ssault (03W672)
1. The Coml of ilppeds erred in holding that the trial court's ruling
could not be upheld on a basis not mised at trial.
2. The Court of i\ppeds erred it1 holding that R~de 613(a) of the
Texas Rules of Evidence did not apply because the victim was the defendants
partyopponent under Rule 801(e) (2).
3. The Court of Appcals erred in holding the exclusion of defense
evidence is harmful wllere anotl~er witness testifled to the same or similar
evidence.
0817-01 hli3NDEZ, JOHN BUSTMIOhIT: 09/12/01 ATaylor Morder
(042///347)
1. Wlletller the adoption of Rule 33.1, Tea. R. App. Proc., requiring
contempolwleous objection to presewe all non-stmch~d appellate
error ha overruled thirty years of court opinions requiring the trid
court to stla sponte u~itlal~x\v a guilty plea before a ju~y rvl~en evidence
of innocence is adduced before that jur). and not withdraun.
0827-01 IILITCIIINSON, CLYDE 2, JR. 09/12/01 A Harrison
Bwglaiy of Building (042///336)
1. Did the Coml of Appeals err in ordering the trial court to supplemeut
the trid record \\it11 written Eu~dings of fact md conclosio~~s
of law that wcre not required by law to be made by the trial court?
2. Did the Court of Appeals err in osdering the record to be supplemented?
3. Did the Court ofAppeds err bydlouu~g the state to supplen~ent
the record with regard to Appellant's Batson challenge, wl~ich unfairly
gave the state hvo bites at the apple?
0953-01 GUTIERREZ, ESEQUIEL 09/12/01 S Sau Palricio Delive~y
of Controlled Substance (046///394)
1. This Court should re-examine Stover's l~olding that wl~ere a
motion to revoke is fled and a capias issues before the espimtion of
the probationa~y term, but the probationer is not apprel~ended until
dter the tern1 is expired, the state must, if the issue is raised, prove due
diligem in attenlpting to apprehend the probationel:
0958-01 ANTONELLI, LOUIS 09/12/01 S Dallas Motion to Quash
(NP)
1. Did the Court ofAppeals err in selectively iuld 11at.sldy applying
civil appellate rules to a criminal appeal instead of p~~rposefully
less-stringent crin~~d
xppeuste li~les?
2. Because the trial court's second order cannot stmd independently,
and is only effective if it incolpontes the fint order, the Court of
~lppeals erred UI dimissing the state's appd because it referred to the
date of the only order quailing the indictment.
01-1057 KEETER, JACKIE RUSSELL 09/12/01 S Hanliltou Indecency
u/Cl~ild (046///394)
I. Did the Court of Appeals apply an improper standard of revieicw
to the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for new trial?
2. When ruling on a n~otio~~ for new trial based upon the victin's
recantation of her trial testimony, is the trial court required to accept
the recantation as probably true if there esists no controverting evidence?
NOVEMBER 2001 WWW.TCDL&.COM VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE 33