Houston has two intermediate appellate courts: the First and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. Both sit downtown and cover the same district: Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Colorado, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Harris, Waller, and Washington counties. Cases are assigned randomly between the two courts. We have handled more cases in these two courts than in any others.
The two courts behave differently despite sharing the same district. The First Court holds oral argument in about 36% of criminal cases—the highest rate of any Texas court of appeals. On the Fourteenth Court side: after a court of appeals decides a criminal case, either party can ask the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider the outcome by filing a Petition for Discretionary Review (PDR). The CCA grants—agrees to hear—about 7.8% of PDRs from Fourteenth Court decisions, the second-highest acceptance rate in the state, and when it takes a case, rules against the lower court about 77% of the time.
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.
First Court of Appeals—Cases
- Ex parte Lo, No. 01-11-00020-CR (pretrial habeas). A facial First Amendment challenge to the online-solicitation statute: we argued that section 33.021(b) of the Texas Penal Code is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague because it criminalizes a vast amount of protected adult speech, and that it violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by regulating the entire internet.
- Ex parte Wheeler, No. 01-14-00868-CR (pretrial habeas). A facial challenge to another part of the online-solicitation statute: we argued that sections 33.021(c) and (d) of the Texas Penal Code are overbroad and vague because they criminalize role-play between consenting adults and, through subsection (d), eliminate the specific-intent requirement and bar a fantasy defense, and that they violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.
- Robinson v. State, No. 01-24-00855-CR (direct appeal). Online solicitation of a minor under section 33.021 of the Texas Penal Code, where the person solicited was an undercover officer. We argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the within-three-years age defense under section 33.021(e)(2), because the officer’s stated age was within three years of the defendant’s.
- Ex parte Robinson, No. 01-22-00583-CR (pretrial habeas). A pretrial constitutional challenge in an online-solicitation prosecution: we argued that section 33.021(c) of the Texas Penal Code is a facially overbroad, content-based restriction that fails strict scrutiny, because solicitation under the statute requires no imminence, likelihood, or lawless action.
- Balanzar v. State, No. 01-19-00168-CR (direct appeal). Aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. We argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to a jury charge whose “on or about” language across multiple counts exposed the defendant to double jeopardy and failed to require unanimity as to which act supported which count.
- Escarenio v. State, No. 01-25-00646-CR (direct appeal). Continuous sexual abuse of a young child under section 21.02 of the Texas Penal Code. We argue that the evidence is legally insufficient to prove two or more acts of abuse committed in Texas at least thirty days apart; that the outcry witness was improperly designated under article 38.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and that the trial court wrongly admitted grooming and trauma expert testimony and extraneous-offense evidence under Rules 702 and 403 and article 38.37.
- Ex parte Eugene, No. 01-23-00174-CR, with companions Ex parte McGee, No. 01-23-00176-CR, and Ex parte Estevez, No. 01-23-00216-CR (pretrial habeas). A challenge to a contempt judgment imposed for an alleged bond violation: we argued that the show-cause order alleged no offense and gave no notice, leaving the trial court without jurisdiction and the contempt judgment void.
Fourteenth Court of Appeals—Cases
- Tibbs v. State, Nos. 14-01-01173-CR & 14-01-01174-CR (direct appeal). Murder and aggravated assault arising from a fatal knife fight in which the defendant claimed self-defense. We argued that the trial court erred by admitting character evidence of a third party’s skinhead affiliation, Nazi tattoos, and racist activities as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial guilt-by-association evidence.
- Valdez v. State, No. 14-15-00958-CR (direct appeal). Continuous sexual abuse of a young child. We argued that the trial court erred by admitting outcry testimony at guilt and punishment without the notice and summary required by article 38.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and by excluding the defendant’s good-character evidence for safe relations with children.
- Hart v. State, No. 14-22-00237-CR (direct appeal). Aggravated sexual assault of a child. We argued that the trial court erred by overruling a hearsay objection to a statement in the complainant’s medical records that was hearsay within hearsay and not admissible under the medical-diagnosis exception.
- Farias v. State, No. 14-23-00505-CR (direct appeal). Aggravated robbery and burglary of a habitation, both with a deadly weapon. We argued that the jury charge permitted a non-unanimous verdict as to the means of each offense, and that the trial court erred by admitting custodial statements taken after the defendant invoked his right to remain silent.
- Echenwune v. State, No. 14-16-00955-CR (direct appeal). Engaging in organized criminal activity predicated on aggregate theft from Medicare and Medicaid through a fraudulent ambulance-billing scheme. We argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove a qualifying owner and a combination, and that the trial court erred by admitting multiply-hearsay billing records.
- Dupuy v. State, No. 14-19-00119-CR (direct appeal). Two convictions for online impersonation under section 33.07 of the Texas Penal Code for posting two women as prostitutes on Backpage.com. We argued that the evidence was legally insufficient on identity, that the trial court erred by denying a mistrial after a venireperson’s prejudicial comment and by admitting business records, and that the statute is unconstitutional facially and as applied under the First Amendment.
- Roberts v. State, No. 14-25-00061-CR (direct appeal). Possession of a prohibited substance in a correctional facility, after officers searched the defendant at a jail attorney-visitation booth. We argue that the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress the search of a visitor who was forcibly detained and searched without a warrant or probable cause, and by admitting previously suppressed unwarned statements on an “opened the door” theory that Rule 107 cannot use to override article 38.22.