Texas Capitol

Search Petitions, Briefs and Summaries

Petition filed by SPA icon denotes a petition filled by SPA

HOLOMAN, HAROLD

03/20/2019

“Is a prior conviction for family violence under Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(A) always a guilt issue simply because it can be, and often is, used as a jurisdictional element?”

LOPEZ, MARTIN RIVERA

03/20/2019

1. “The court of appeals erred by concluding that a 112 day delay was presumptively prejudicial based on potential delay that had not yet occurred and by weighing the first Barker factor against the State.” 2. “The court of appeals erred by concluding that the State was responsible for the del...

EBIKAM, OBINNA

02/27/2019

“Whether a defendant’s failure to admit the exact manner and means of an assault as set forth in a charging instrument is a sufficient basis to deny a jury charge on self-defense.”

DIAMOND, LESLY

02/13/2019

“Did the court of appeals fail to apply to the standard of review correctly in conducting its Brady analysis?”

FOREMAN, NATHAN

1.  “The Fourteenth Court erred by holding that a magistrate could not infer from the warrant affidavit that an auto body shop would have a surveillance system. The Fourteenth Court held that before a magistrate could consider common knowledge, the matter must be ‘beyond dispute,’ a civil standar...

WORK, SYDNEY

01/30/2019

1.  “The Court of Appeals erred when it held that prior possession and use of contraband may be admitted to prove knowledge of contraband and intent to possess contraband under Rules 403 and 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence.” 2.   “The Court of Appeals erred when it held that prior possessi...

MUSA-VALLE, JOSÉ

01/09/2019

1. “Did the court of appeals err by failing to recognize municipalities’ authority, granted pursuant to the doctrine of home-rule cities and by Texas Penal Code § 42.12(d), to ban the discharge of firearms?” 2. “Did the lower court err by holding the San Antonio Ordinance should be construed as ...

WILLIAMS, JAMES

01/09/2019

1. “The trial court’s order correcting its prior judgment was signed while the trial court retained plenary power. Although labeled as a ‘Nunc Pro Tunc Order,’ the court of appeals concluded that the order was merely a modification of the judgment and not an order ‘nunc pro tunc.’ The court of ap...