Second Court of Appeals

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of May 9, 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.

Cox v. State, No. 02-14-00399-CR, (May 12, 2016) (Sudderth, J., joined by Livingston, C.J.; Dauphinot, J., concurs with opinion).

Held:  The State of Texas had jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant for the sexual assault of a child that occurred in Juarez, Mexico, where the Appellant kidnapped the child in Tarrant County, Texas, and sexually assaulted the child on the bus ride from Tarrant County to El Paso. Appellant’s actions constituted a continuing criminal episode and the Texas Legislature has expressed its intent to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over criminal conduct involving the sexual assault of a child. Additionally, the evidence was sufficient to show that Appellant “restrained” the child by intimidating her through threats and displays of anger.

Concurrence:  The record shows that Appellant moved the child from her middle school to Mexico, more than a 120-mile radius from her home, without her parents’ acquiescence, and took steps to prevent her parents from finding the complainant. The record also shows that he intended to sexually assault her. Because of her age, that is enough evidence to prove restraint and aggravated kidnapping.

Armandariz v. State, No. 02-15-00116-CR, (May 12, 2016) (Walker, J., joined by Gardner and Meier, JJ.).

Held:  In this Anders case, we granted Appellant’s motion to access the appellate record and directed the trial court clerk to make the appellate record available to him. The trial court clerk diligently complied with our order by sending Appellant printouts of the paper documents in the record along with a disk containing audio and video exhibits. The trial court clerk also sent a letter to the warden of Appellant’s prison unit with instructions that Appellant was to be provided supervised access to a computer upon which he could view the audio and video exhibits. The prison unit returned the disk to the trial court clerk with a note stating that prisoners were not permitted access to disks or computer equipment. Thus, the record does not reflect, and we are not satisfied, that Appellant has received access to the complete appellate record. As such, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court.

State v. Torrez, No. 02-15-00170-CR, (May 12, 2016) (Livingston, C.J., joined by Gabriel and Sudderth, JJ.).

Held: The findings expressed by the trial court at the hearing on appellee’s motion to suppress—that a police officer credibly believed that appellee’s right headlight was out but that the officer was simply mistaken in that belief as indicated by subsequent facts—cannot support the trial court’s conclusion that suppression of evidence was warranted.