Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

The Court of Criminal Appeals

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort for criminal matters in Texas. Nine judges sit in Austin and decide the cases the court chooses to hear—through petitions for discretionary review from courts of appeals decisions, and through habeas corpus applications filed directly with the court after conviction.

The CCA does not take every case. It takes cases that present important, unsettled, or conflicting legal questions. Getting the court’s attention requires a petition that frames the issue in terms the court will recognize as worth its time.

How the CCA decides criminal cases

The chart below tracks every criminal case through the Court of Criminal Appeals: who filed, what the court did with it, and who won. Filter by date range, click any node to see the cases behind it.

Our Petitions for Discretionary Review

The Court of Criminal Appeals grants discretionary review in only a small fraction of the cases brought to it. The cases below are petitions for discretionary review in our clients’ matters. Decided cases note the result; petitions still pending appear at the end.

Decisions in our clients’ favor

• PD-1560-12 Ex parte Lo. Online solicitation of a minor, section 33.021(b) of the Texas Penal Code. We argued the subsection was a content-based speech restriction that failed strict scrutiny. The Court held section 33.021(b) facially unconstitutional and struck it down.
• PD-0176-25 Hernandez v. State. Evading arrest or detention. We argued the detention was unlawful and the evidence legally insufficient. The Court reversed the court of appeals and rendered a judgment of acquittal.
• PD-0075-24 Owens v. State. Harassment by electronic communication, section 42.07(a)(7) of the Texas Penal Code. We argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied to our client’s messages. The Court agreed, reversed, and remanded for dismissal of the charging instrument.
• PD-0581-24 Ex parte Estevez. Driving while intoxicated. We argued a successive prosecution violated the prohibition on multiple punishments. The Court reversed and remanded for dismissal.
• PD-0510-25 Barber v. State. Intoxication manslaughter; suppression of a blood draw. We argued the warrant was unlawfully executed and the offense did not occur in the officer’s presence or view. The Court disavowed its earlier construction in State v. Woodard, reversed a ruling that had favored the State, and remanded.
• PD-0517-24 Ex parte McGee. Driving while intoxicated. We argued the court of appeals wrongly treated the appeal as moot. The Court vacated that judgment and remanded.
• PD-0461-24 Ex parte Eugene. Driving while intoxicated. We argued the court of appeals failed to address its own jurisdiction and our client’s right to appeal. The Court vacated and remanded.
• PD-0205-24 Cuarenta v. State. We argued the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over the State’s appeal. The Court agreed and reversed.
• PD-0290-23 Alkayyali v. State. Murder. The court of appeals had reversed the conviction for egregious jury-charge error; on the State’s petition we defended that reversal, and the Court affirmed it.

Other petitions the Court agreed to hear

• PD-0469-19 Ex parte Sanders. Harassment by electronic communication, section 42.07(a)(7) of the Texas Penal Code. We argued the statute regulates speech protected by the First Amendment. The Court granted review and held the statute proscribes conduct that does not implicate the First Amendment, affirming the court of appeals.
• PD-0478-19 Ex parte Nuncio. Harassment by obscene communication, section 42.07(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code. We argued the statute is an overbroad, vague, content-based speech restriction. The Court granted review and agreed the statute implicates the First Amendment, but affirmed after finding the overbreadth challenge inadequately briefed.
• PD-0422-22 Ex parte Couch. Money laundering, section 34.02(a)(4) of the Texas Penal Code. We argued the statute criminalizes thought and that the challenge was cognizable before trial. The Court granted review and held the facial challenge not cognizable in a pretrial writ of habeas corpus.
• PD-0148-23 Floyd v. State. Aggravated robbery. We argued the charge required a special unanimity instruction. The Court granted review and held none was required, affirming the court of appeals.
• PD-0695-20 Spillman v. State. Assault on a public servant. We challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court granted review and affirmed the court of appeals.

Pending before the Court of Criminal Appeals

• PD-0252-26 Robinson v. State. Online solicitation of a minor, section 33.021(c) of the Texas Penal Code. Whether a court may engraft a belief element onto the age-gap defense in section 33.021(e)(2).
• PD-0178-26 Lankford v. State. Possession of child pornography. Whether the good-faith exception can save a forensic phone search under a warrant that named no device and was signed by a magistrate without authority.
• PD-0174-26 Johnson v. State. Possession with intent to deliver fentanyl. Whether the knowledge element extends to the controlled substance’s penalty group.
• PD-0077-26 Whitehead v. State. False report to a peace officer. Whether an Anders review must analyze legal sufficiency element by element.
• PD-0556-25 Garcia v. State. Family-violence assault. How little evidence can prove the family-relationship element (review granted; submitted and awaiting decision).
• PD-0523-25 Nguyen v. State. Murder. Whether a geofence search warrant served on Google violated the Fourth Amendment.
• PD-0479-25 Williams v. State. Murder, section 19.02(b) of the Texas Penal Code. Whether the subsection codifies separate offenses requiring jury unanimity, and whether extraneous-offense evidence was wrongly admitted.
• PD-0541-25 Barrera v. State. Murder. Whether barring cross-examination about a witness’s deferred adjudication was error and whether the charge allowed a non-unanimous verdict.

Cases we won below, now before the Court on the State’s petition

• PD-0692-25 Williams v. State. Aggravated promotion of prostitution. The court of appeals reversed the conviction on an indictment-notice ground; the State seeks review.
• PD-0358-25 Mejia v. State. Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The court of appeals reversed for our client on the rule of optional completeness; the State seeks review.

Habeas Corpus—Article 11.07

In a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the convicting court forwards the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which alone can grant relief. The Court granted relief in each case below.

• WR-84,565-01 Ex parte Kerry Max Cook. Capital murder. After decades of litigation, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief on grounds including actual innocence, in one of the longest-running wrongful-conviction cases in Texas history.
• WR-96,658-01 Ex parte Williams. Online solicitation of a minor. Relief granted following Ex parte Lo, which held section 33.021(b) of the Texas Penal Code unconstitutional.
• WR-89,524-01 Ex parte Benedict. Online solicitation of a minor. Relief granted under Ex parte Lo.
• WR-88,187-01 Ex parte Honolka. Online solicitation of a minor. Relief granted under Ex parte Lo.
• WR-87,925-01 Ex parte Perry. Online solicitation of a minor. Relief granted under Ex parte Lo.
• WR-92,622-01 Ex parte (sealed). The Court granted post-conviction habeas relief; the record is sealed by expunction.

Talk to us

713-224-1747.