Texas Capitol

Search Petitions, Briefs and Summaries

Petition filed by SPA icon denotes a petition filled by SPA

 

 

SULLIVAN, DERRICK

“The court of appeals’ [sic] committed a structural error by denying the appellant his right’s of due process. The second issue is whether the appellant has a right to file a pro se appeal brief after the court denies appellant his right to find new appeal counsel, and after the court has allowed...

WOOD, CYNTHIA

01/10/2018

“The lower court erred in holding that an indictment for criminal attempt is fundamentally defective when it does not allege the constituent elements of the underlying offense attempted.”

THOMAS, KEITHRICK

11/22/2017

“Has a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, where a police officer approaches a vehicle passenger, after the passenger has exited the vehicle, and conducts a warrantless search of the passenger’s pockets, in the driveway of the passenger’s house?”

THOMAS, KEITHRICK

11/22/2017

“Has a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, where a police officer approaches a vehicle passenger, after the passenger has exited the vehicle, and conducts a warrantless search of the passenger’s pockets, in the driveway of the passenger’s house?”

LEE, JOHN

11/15/2017

1. “The Court of Appeals decided an important question of state law in a way that conflicts with applicable decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals when it found the State’s opening argument to constitute error.” 2. “The Court of Appeals decided an important question of state law in a way tha...

CARTER, DOUGLAS

11/08/2017

“Did the court of appeals err in holding that Section 133.102(a)(1) of the Texas Local Government Code by which the ‘consolidated court cost’ was assessed is not facially unconstitutional?”

EX PARTE GARCIA, SAMUEL OSVALDO

11/01/2017

“Is a claim that counsel misadvised a defendant about the deportation consequences associated with a guilty plea cognizable on habeas despite Ex parte De Los Reyes’ holding that Padilla does not apply retroactively on habeas?”

HANSON, CRISPEN

11/01/2017

1. “Where, regardless of whether the shock-probation order was ‘original’ or ‘amended,’ because it is a type of order identified as appealable under the plain language of article 44.01, and because the State’s notice of appeal was filed within 20 days from the amended order’s entry, the Eighth Co...