Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of November 24, 2008

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.

Aldrich v. State, No. 02-05-00303-CR (Nov. 26, 2008) (Walker, J., joined by Livingston, Dauphinot, Holman, Gardner, and McCoy, JJ.; Cayce, C.J., dissents and concurs with opinion) (en banc). [Note: These Opinions were withdrawn August 25, 2009.]: Held: Appellant's defense counsel's pretrial conduct in misunderstanding the law, failing to adequately convey the plea offer, failing to conduct a reasonable investigation, and failing to timely obtain and disclose defense experts constituted deficient performance, and appellant's defense counsel's trial conduct in presenting defensive theories not supported by the evidence, continuing to misunderstand the law, failing to properly question witnesses, and making inaccurate factual statements constituted deficient performance during the trial on guilt-innocence. Moreover, Appellant established by a preponderance of the evidence that the totality of his defense counsel's constitutionally deficient performance prejudiced his defense, that defense counsel's errors—including during plea negotiations—were so serious that he was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment, that defense counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result, and that but for defense counsel's performance, the result would have been different.; Dissenting and Concurring Opinion: Counsel's performance was deficient, but the preponderance of the evidence does not show that counsel's conduct so undermined the functioning of the adversarial process that the trial produced an unjust result.

City of The Colony, Tex. v. N. Tex. Mun. Water Dist. & City of Frisco, Tex.; and City of Frisco, Tex. v. City of The Colony, Tex.; and N. Tex. Mun. Water Dist. v. City of The Colony, Tex., No. 02-07-00128-CV (Nov. 26, 2008) (Holman, J., joined by Livingston and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not err by granting Frisco's and the District's motions for summary judgment on: (1) The Colony's claims seeking a declaration that no contract was formed; (2) The Colony's claims seeking a declaration that it was entitled to rescind the contract; (3) The Colony's claims seeking a declaration that it was entitled to the quasi-contractual remedy of unjust enrichment; and (4) The Colony's breach of contract claims. Nor did the trial court's rulings on the motions for summary judgment taken together with other alleged erroneous rulings cause the rendition of an improper judgment.; The trial court did not err by granting Frisco's motion for summary judgment on Frisco's breach of contract counterclaim, and the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury's finding awarding $0.00 for The Colony's failure to comply with the contract.; The trial court did not err by overruling the District's motion to disregard the jury's finding that the District materially breached the contract, and the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's finding that the District materially breached the contract by failing to have adequate capacity. Neither Frisco nor the District demonstrated entitlement to attorneys' fees.