Texas Courts of Appeals
Harris County District Attorney’s Office and Harris County v. Woods and Davis
No. 01-23-00863-CR 11/25/25
Issue:
In an asset forfeiture proceeding, can the plaintiffs use the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) to challenge the forfeiture policies and procedures of the district attorney’s office?
Holding:
No. The trial court does not have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ UDJA claims because the plaintiffs’ pleadings do not show a waiver of governmental immunity. While the UDJA waives governmental immunity for claims that a statute or ordinance is invalid, those express waivers do not include challenges to the constitutionality of a governmental entity’s “policies and practices” like those raised by the plaintiffs. “Unlike a §1983 action, which requires consideration of an official’s specific conduct, the UDJA does not waive immunity for such claims.” The Court also noted that the plaintiffs raised the same constitutional claims in a pending civil forfeiture action, and therefore their constitutional challenges to the officials’ acts and CCP Chapter 59 (including the innocent owner defense) are barred by the redundant remedies doctrine. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This decision is reached based upon two grounds that will be of interest to those who prosecute civil forfeiture actions in general and declaratory judgment suits in particular. First, the court held that the law dealing with declaratory judgments deals with the validity of statutes, and not the policies of a district attorney’s office. As such, sovereign immunity is still in place, and the court notes a distinction in how sovereign immunity is treated in declaratory judgment actions and how it is treated in §1983 claims. Second, the court held that the plaintiffs could not pursue declaratory judgment relief because the claims had already been raised in the related civil forfeiture action, in which the plaintiffs (as asset forfeiture defendants) had gained a victory on appeal in October: https://www.tdcaa.com/case-summaries/october-17-2025/. That decision is currently on rehearing before the court of appeals.
Willingham v. State
No. 14-24-00418-CR 11/25/25
Issue:
Did the trial court err in allowing an instruction on “joint possession” of drugs in the jury charge?
Holding:
Yes, but the error was harmless. The Court noted that while the 2019 edition of the Texas Criminal Pattern Jury Charges stated that instructions on joint possession were permissible when raised by the facts, the Court of Criminal Appeals noted its disagreement with the Pattern Jury Charge committee on this issue in Beltran de la Torre v. State, 583 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019), holding that joint-possession instructions impermissibly comment on the weight of the evidence. The 2025 edition of the Criminal Pattern Jury Charges has omitted its joint-possession suggestion. Looking at the evidence in this case, the Court concluded that “[o]n balance, … the joint-possession instruction, though error, did not cause [the defendant] any actual harm.” Read opinion.
Commentary:
This decision will be helpful for those who need a reminder that a jury charge on joint possession in drug case is a comment on the weight of the evidence, as is the case for most non-statutory-based jury instructions in criminal cases. Because the evidence against the defendant in this case was strong, the defendant was not harmed by the joint-possession instruction in the abstract portion of the jury charge. The application paragraph still required the jury to find that the defendant knowingly possessed the methamphetamine found in his vehicle.
White v. State
No. 02-24-00404-CR 11/20/25
Issue:
In an unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon case, can the trial court enter a deadly weapon finding based on the defendant’s use of his firearm to commit a felony other than unlawful possession of a firearm?
Holding:
No. The deadly weapon’s use must facilitate the felony of conviction to which the deadly weapon finding is attached, and it cannot facilitate a different felony, including an uncharged or dismissed felony. While the Court of Criminal Appeals has not directly addressed the issue, the opinion noted that at least four other courts of appeals have required the defendant’s use or exhibition of a deadly weapon to facilitate the offense on which the deadly weapon finding is entered. Read opinion.
Commentary:
The Court of Criminal Appeals may not have directly addressed the issue in this case, but Second Court of Appeals’ very thorough decision relies heavily upon precedent from the Court of Criminal Appeals regarding what constitutes “use” and “a felony offense” under Art. 42A.054(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court of appeals acknowledges the differences of approach on this issue among various courts of appeals, so it remains to be seen if the Court of Criminal Appeals will address this decision on petition for discretionary review. In the meantime, prosecutors who wish to seek a deadly weapon finding in a firearm-possession case should definitely read this opinion, as well as the excellent briefing on this issue by the State on appeal.