Second Court of Appeals

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of May 2, 2016.

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Davis v. State, Nos. 02-15-00087-CR, 02-15-00088-CR (May 5, 2016) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Sudderth, J.; Walker, J. concurs without opinion).

Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant’s motion to suppress his confession because the evidence conflicted on whether the police officer had told Appellant that if he made a statement, it could be used for him at trial.

The gravamen of robbery is assault. The law of parties requires no agreement. A video captured the aggravated robberies in the store. There is therefore sufficient evidence that Appellant participated at least as a party not only in the aggravated robbery of the cashier but also in the aggravated robbery of the customer, and he was not entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction for theft. Further, Appellant suffered no harm from the trial court’s erroneous refusal to narrow the general charge on the law of parties in the application paragraph. Finally, Appellant did not admit to each element of either aggravated robbery; the trial court therefore did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on the necessity defense.

Snodgrass v. State, No. No. 02-15-00351-CR, (May 5, 2016) (Sudderth, J., joined by Gardner and Gabriel, JJ.).

Held: When determining the number of days to be served in a sentence, a month equals thirty days and a year equals 365 days. In calculating credit for time served, we count the first day served and the last day served. Appellant was entitled to credit for time served between the date of filing of the motion for revocation and the date of hearing. However, Appellant's equal protection rights were not violated when the trial court denied credit for time served in jail from arrest to sentencing—even though he was indigent during this 358-day period—because when these days are added to the sentence assessed and the time served awaiting the revocation hearing, he still would not serve more than the maximum sentence of two years, or 730 days.