Special Events - Voice For The Defense Online

1485-00 MITCHBLL, WlJLlAhi 01/10/01 S Bexar Aggravated Robbe~y(023///582)1. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that Mitchell's counsel's performancewas deficient in the absence of a record showing counsel's allegederror was not based upon a tactical decision2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that Aiitcl~ell was prejudiced inthe absence of a record &malively sliowinn that, but for counsel's error,the outcome of tlie proceeding wo~ld have been dBerent.1573-00 VASQUEZ, EVERADO 01/17/01 S Ilarris Aggravated Robber).(NP)1. W~ether tl~e Court of Appeals erred to state that accon~plice witnesstestimony conce~ning the use of a deadly weapon must be corrobo~xtedwhen the ju~y finds the defendant guilty "as cl~arged in tlie indictment."0646-00 AiARBELM, JOSEPH, lU OlI3l/Ol S A'acogdoches Theft (NP)1. Is the refusal of the trial court and the state to agree to the defendant'soffer to stipulate to h o pior convictions, necessaty as jurisdictional elements,error where no additional prior convictions are alleged in theindictment?1442-00 ZAMORMTO, ROSANO 01/31/01 A Bexar hiisdenleanor Dm(02 1///664)1. The Court of Appeals has decided an iniportant question of law in ~OIIllictwith the decisions of the Suprenle Court of the United States, in thattlle coua held that a defendant waives his claim that he was denied aspeedy trial wliere he does not assert the claini wit11 inm~ediaoi, ;u~d thatthe defendant must show more than "some" prejudice when werting hehas been denied his right to a speedy trial.2. The COIII~ of Appeals has sanctioned a depa~hlre from the acceptedand ~ciual course of judicial proceedings by the trial court, so as to caUfor the exercise of the Court of Criminal Appeals pou r er of supe~vision, inthat the Court of Appeals mied the t~ial court's clearly erroneousapplication of the law to the facts, placing an unconstifutional degree ofburden on a defendant who anenipts to assert hat his constitutional rigl~tto a speedy trial was violated.167140 MAXWFLI., ROBERT DANIEL 01/31/01 A Harris AggmvatedRobbe~y (NP)1. Whetl~er the trial coua committed reve~siblerror by failing to pernutAppellant to inipeach a key state witness by showing 11e was selvingdeferred adjudication probation at the time of trial.S.W.2D 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)12. &%ether the Eighth Court of Appeals' opinion that Appellant is notbeing subjected to double jeopardy is an~important question of state andfeded law that should be decided by the Couit of Criminal Appeals?3. Wliether the Eighth Court of Appeals' opinion that the n~istrial gmtedsue sponte by the court below was justified by manifest necessity andtherefore, a retrial is not barred by the double jeopardy provision of t11eUnited States Constih~tion conllicts with the decision of the United StatesSupren~e Court in kizona v. \Vasliingfon, 434 U.S. 497 (1978).PRIOR SENTENCE HELD RELEVANTTO SENTENCING: SUNBURYKSTm,No. 01-98-01357-CR, 11/22/00The defendair is tried seriatim for hvo robberies before standingtrial for the third. All robberies arose out of a sting of offenses wliicl~are tried consecnlively. State prevents the defense fro"; eliciting evidenceabout the sentences received in the h\.o prior cases even though the stateis pernutted to elicit details of those offenses at the punishment phase.Court of Appeals holds that the sentences received are matters "~~clcwtto sentencing" under Art. 37.07 and remands for a new punishment hearing.The defendant was originally ordered to pay $10,000 pern~ontl~ in restitution. Upon the inevihble MRP, the court finds tliat thedefendant is unable to pay the ten grwd and revokes the probation in onecase md, in the scco~~d, amends tlie conditions of probation to read "asmuch restihltion as the defendant an alTord." COA finds that the trialcourt abused its discretion in revoking probation because of defendant'sinability to pay. COA so holds despite evidence that the defendant spentsome of him money on non-essentials, sucli as a gym menibenhip, etc.Court holds that the standard is whether the defendant is unable to paythe ordered amount, not sonic lesser an~ount. As to amended conditions,cou~? hds that they are too vague to withstand scrutinySTANDING FOR DETENTION OF PASSENGER: MORPlh' K S%%,No. 04-99-00055-CR, 11/29/00While a car passenger has no stamling to cliallenge a searcli ofthe car; he does have standing to challenge any tempom~y detention madeof 11im by the police.00-1879/80 FIERRO, ABEL LUNA, 111 OlMUOl A Brewster Agg. Sm~d~lssault of a Child (NP)1. Wletlier the Eighth Court of Appeals' opinion tliat the nustrid grantedsua sponte by the court below was justified by malifest necessity and,therefore, a retrial is not bamed by double jeopardy provision of theUnited States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Texas is inco~act with tlie opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex ParteLittle, 887 S.W.2D 62 (Tes. CiTni. App. 1994) and Brown v. State, 907TheMentioned aboveare synopsesofopinions ofthe appealscourtstistedSignificant Decisions Report was reported byCynthia LHampton, Editor. Mike Charii0n.Assistant EditorWe inde all comments and construclke criticism from our members and VOICEoffhedelense readersPLEASE EMAlL OR FAXO' Ann Johnson -TCOlb Execlmve Director- diohnso~cdla.com. 51269-9107nrJohn Carroll- ~0l~~~ditor.jca~;ol~ntamail.com .21042941?dThe SPKs printing cost is funded byThe Judicial & Court Training Fund andadmiislered by the texas Court of Criminal Appeals