Texas Courts of Appeals
Ragan v. State
No. 10-18-00366-CR 8/21/20
Issue:
Does a defendant’s waiver of a jury trial meet constitutional requirements when the defendant signed a written waiver voluntarily waiving his right to a jury trial, although the record did not show he knowingly and intelligently waived that right?
Holding:
Yes. The waiver the defendant signed complied with Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 1.13. The defendant admitted this waiver was voluntary, and according to caselaw, compliance with Art. 1.13 is sufficient to show the waiver was intelligently made as well. Further, after a review of the discussion between the trial court, the defendant’s counsel, the defendant, and the State, the record established the defendant’s express, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to a jury trial. Read Opinion.
Commentary:
It often happens—as it did in this case—that a defendant will shift gears during trial and decide that he wants to waive one of his constitutional rights, such as the right to a jury trial. It is always important to remember that the record needs to reflect that the defendant voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waived that right. That needs to be done in writing as well (although the failure to waive the right in writing is subject to a harm analysis). This defendant wanted the trial judge to follow admonishments and questioning that have been adopted in federal district court. But the court of appeals accepted the questioning that the trial judge did. That should be sufficient.
In re Keeling
No. 10-20-00199-CR 8/21/20
Issue:
Can a writ of mandamus be used to compel a trial court to rule on a pending motion for a free record?
Holding:
Yes. Mandamus may issue to compel a trial court to rule on a motion that has been pending before the court for a reasonable period of time. In this case, the trial court had a reasonable time to rule on the defendant’s motion. Read Opinion.
Commentary:
It cannot be said often enough that trial judges receive many motions from pro se defendants. One of the leading ways for a trial judge to have a writ of mandamus filed against the judge is for the judge to fail to rule on the pro se defendant’s motion. This opinion does not mean that the trial judge must grant the defendant’s request for a free record. It just means that the trial judge must rule on the motion.
Texas Attorney General Opinions
KP-0330 8/25/20
Issue:
What is the appropriate method for calculating the percentage of judicial functions a county judge performs for purposes of determining entitlement to a salary supplement under Government Code §26.006?
Conclusion:
Government Code §26.006 (a) authorizes a county judge to obtain an annual salary supplement if at least 40 percent of the functions that the judge performs are judicial functions. The Legislature did not specify a method for how to calculate the percentage of judicial functions performed by the county judge. Therefore, the AG’s Office could not conclude as a matter of law that the salary supplement is available only to those judges who spend at least 40 percent of their time on judicial functions, nor that it is only available when the number of judicial functions performed as a percentage of the total number of functions performed is equal to or greater than 40 percent. Given the broad nature of §26.006(a), a court could conclude that either method of calculation is appropriate. The Legislature authorized the State Auditor, upon legislative directive, to audit or investigate any entity receiving funds from the State. The State Auditor may therefore investigate an allegation that an affidavit submitted by a county judge incorrectly claims that 40 percent of his or her functions are judicial. Read Opinion.
Commentary:
To be clear, the county judge referred to in this opinion is the presiding member of a county’s commissioner’s court. This opinion places any dispute in the hands of the State Auditor, who can investigate a county judge’s claim that he is entitled to supplementary income. But as pointed out in footnote 6, there may be another remedy—a prosecution for perjury (because the request for supplementary income is presented by way of an affidavit).