Texas Courts of Appeals
Ex parte C.M.
No. 05-25-00390-CV 8/11/26
Issue:
Does Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 11 apply to juvenile writ proceedings relating to prohibited successive writs?
Holding:
No. While Chapter 11 prohibits a court from considering many subsequent writ applications, it does not apply to juvenile cases, which are civil in nature. “The legislature has not evinced an intent to apply [Chapter 11] to delinquency proceedings. Nor has the legislature specifically mandated that a writ application, filed as a result of a juvenile-delinquency adjudication, be treated as a criminal matter.” The juvenile in this case filed a writ application under Texas Constitution Art. V, §8, which does not have limitations on subsequent writs in juvenile cases. “We decline the State’s invitation to judicially adopt a rule barring subsequent juvenile writ applications like the rule set out in [Chapter 11].” Read opinion.
Commentary:
This may be the only decision that has dealt with the ability of a juvenile defendant to file a subsequent post-adjudication writ of habeas corpus. The analysis is thorough, so it may hold up if review is sought in the Texas Supreme Court, but note that the court of appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court ruling denying habeas relief to the defendant. Post-conviction and juvenile prosecutors will want to review this decision when faced with a subsequent writ filed by a juvenile defendant.
State v. Richardson
No. 05-25-00716-CR 8/10/26
Issue:
In a State’s appeal challenging a trial judge’s suppression order, must the State include the language of Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 44.01(a)(5) and have the elected prosecutor certify “to the trial court that the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence … is of substantial importance in the case”?
Holding:
Yes. The Court noted that the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that the certification requirements in Art. 44.01(a)(5) are mandatory and pointed out that under State v. Redus, 445 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), merely quoting the statutory provision permitting the State’s appeal is insufficient; the elected prosecutor must expressly make the required certifications. The Court dismissed the State’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it lacked the required certifications. Read opinion.
Commentary:
When bringing a State’s appeal, it is important to be very familiar with the provisions in Art. 44.01. As noted in the opinion, courts have previously construed the certification requirement for appeals of trial court rulings granting a motion to suppress. Those courts have also considered that certification requirement to be jurisdictional. Stay tuned to see if the Court of Criminal Appeals will want to review this line of authority.