The Tenth Court of Appeals sits in Waco and covers Bosque, Brazos, Burleson, Coryell, Ellis, Falls, Freestone, Hamilton, Hill, Johnson, Leon, Limestone, Madison, McLennan, Navarro, Robertson, Somervell, and Walker counties.
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 about 7.4% of PDRs from Tenth Court decisions and, when it does, rules against the lower court in about 55% of those cases. The Tenth Court holds oral argument in only about 15% of criminal cases. Three justices cover eighteen counties stretching from the Brazos Valley through Central Texas.
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.
Tenth Court of Appeals—Cases
- Ex parte Johnson, No. 10-16-00013-CR (pretrial habeas). Fraudulent use or possession of identifying information under section 32.51 of the Texas Penal Code. We argued the statute is facially unconstitutional: overbroad under the First Amendment, void for vagueness in its all-encompassing “harm” standard, and a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
- Ex parte Maddison, No. 10-16-00081-CR (pretrial habeas). Online impersonation under section 33.07(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code for allegedly using another person’s name to create a Facebook page. We argued the statute is a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny because its “harm” element turns on the content of the speech, reaching protected expression, and is unconstitutionally vague.
- Ex parte Ellis, No. 10-17-00047-CR (pretrial habeas). Unlawful disclosure of intimate visual material (“revenge pornography”) under section 21.16(b) of the Texas Penal Code. We argued the statute is a content-based restriction that fails strict scrutiny and is both overbroad and vague.