The Eleventh Court of Appeals sits in Eastland and covers Baylor, Borden, Brown, Callahan, Coleman, Comanche, Dawson, Eastland, Ector, Erath, Fisher, Gaines, Glasscock, Haskell, Howard, Jones, Knox, Martin, Midland, Mitchell, Nolan, Palo Pinto, Scurry, Shackelford, Stephens, Stonewall, Taylor, and Throckmorton counties. Eastland is one of the smallest towns to host a Texas court of appeals.
After a court of appeals decision, either party can file a Petition for Discretionary Review (PDR) asking the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider the outcome. The CCA grants only about 3.2% of PDRs from Eleventh Court decisions and, when it does, rules against the lower court in about half of those cases. The Eleventh Court holds oral argument in about 20% of criminal cases. Three justices cover twenty-eight counties across West Texas, from the Big Country around Abilene to the Permian Basin.
This Court hears appeals from pretrial habeas denials (articles 11.08 and 11.09) and from 11.072 rulings (community supervision). Habeas under article 11.07—the main felony route—is filed with the convicting court and decided by the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Direct Appeals and Postconviction Relief for the full map.
Eleventh Court of Appeals—Cases
- Crawford v. State, No. 11-97-00020-CR (direct appeal, transferred from Harris County). A murder prosecution in which our client, after open pleas of guilty, was tried to a jury on punishment. We argued the punishment trial was tainted by admission of a pistol over a predicate objection, by hearsay testimony from a former girlfriend and a deputy, and by the cumulative effect of those errors.
- Ex parte Collins, No. 11-14-00312-CR (pretrial habeas). An improper-relationship-between-educator-and-student charge under section 21.12 of the Texas Penal Code, built on text messages. We argued the charge omitted an essential element by not alleging the student was a minor, and that section 21.12 is facially unconstitutional through its incorporation of the online-solicitation statute, section 33.021.
- Ex parte Radford, No. 11-15-00108-CR; Ex parte Alvarez, No. 11-15-00201-CR; and Ex parte Chapman, No. 11-15-00215-CR (pretrial habeas). Online solicitation of a minor under section 33.021(c) of the Texas Penal Code. We argued that what remained of section 33.021 after Ex parte Lo is facially overbroad under the First Amendment, vague under the Fourteenth Amendment, and a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
- Ex parte Nunez, No. 11-18-00156-CR (pretrial habeas). Invasive visual recording under section 21.15(b)(2) of the Texas Penal Code. We argued the subsection is facially overbroad under the First Amendment, contending that the favorable language about it in Ex parte Thompson was dicta and that under Stevens, Alvarez, and Reed v. Town of Gilbert it sweeps in a substantial amount of protected expression.