Sharon Keller

In Re Dist. Attorney's Office of 25th Jud. Dist.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2011-03-30 · cited 5×

In a pending sexual assault prosecution, the trial court ordered the State to provide defense counsel with a copy of a DVD recording of the child complainant's interview at a Child Advocacy Center. The prosecutor petitioned for mandamus relief to rescind the order, arguing it exceeded the authority of Article 39.14(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the petition, holding that the statute expressly permits trial courts to order the State to produce and allow copying of tangible evidence in its possession and to specify the manner of copying, which reasonably includes directing the State to make the copy. The majority reasoned that this approach aligns with the statutory text and avoids the alternative of handing over the original DVD to the defense.

criminal lawprocedure

Stokes v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2011-03-02

The case concerned whether a defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery, based on stealing a handgun on January 21, 2005, and for theft, based on possessing the same handgun on February 19, 2005, while knowing it was stolen, violated double jeopardy protections. The court of appeals upheld both convictions, finding the offenses distinct because of the different dates and the additional knowledge element required for the theft charge. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined to grant discretionary review. In dissent, Presiding Judge Keller argued that prior precedent established theft as complete upon the initial unlawful acquisition rather than a continuing offense, so the later possession did not constitute a separate crime from the robbery, and analogous double jeopardy reasoning from Littrell v. State should apply.

criminal lawprocedure

Witkovsky v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2010-12-15

In this criminal case, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation, the court of appeals reversed that revocation, and the State filed a petition for discretionary review. After the court of appeals issued a Rule 50 opinion responding to the petition, the State filed a motion for rehearing (which was overruled) and then a new petition; the court dismissed the new petition as untimely. The majority reasoned that motions for rehearing are not authorized after a Rule 50 opinion under Tex. R. App. P. 50, so the filing deadline ran from the date of that opinion rather than from the overruling of the rehearing motion. The dissenting opinion contends that Rule 50 contains no explicit bar on rehearing motions, that such motions could lead to withdrawal of the opinion without a further opinion, and that the original petition remains pending in any event.

criminal lawprocedure

Trejo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2010-12-08

The case involved a defendant indicted for aggravated sexual assault who was convicted of the lesser-included offense of aggravated assault by causing bodily injury after the trial court submitted that offense to the jury without any request or objection from the defense. The court of appeals held the submission was error because the offense was not a true lesser-included offense and that the defendant was egregiously harmed. In dissenting from the Court of Criminal Appeals' refusal to grant review, the opinion noted that the indictment's allegations of physical force and violence might distinguish the case from Woodard v. State regarding harm to the constitutional right to a grand-jury indictment. It further suggested review was warranted to decide whether the defendant should be estopped from complaining about the submission due to knowing acquiescence in an instruction that offered potential strategic benefits.

criminal lawprocedure

Ex Parte Doster

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2010-02-03 · cited 133×

Tucker v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2008-11-26 · cited 198×

Affiliations

Decision record

Sharon Keller

Decision record

Affiliations