Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Ex parte Speer
No. AP-77,119 9/24/25
Issue:
May a defendant challenge his method of execution on an active death warrant through a constitutional writ filed in district court?
Holding:
No. “Method-of-execution claims raised in the face of an active death warrant may not be raised via a constitutional writ filed in the convicting court. When raised on habeas, such claims must be raised via a constitutional writ filed in [the Court of Criminal Appeals]. For only this Court retains the jurisdiction and authority necessary to afford relief on such claims, should they state a valid basis for habeas corpus relief.” Read opinion.
Concurrence (Yeary, J.):
“I agree with the Court’s opinion in this matter—with one caveat. I understand the Court to be saying only that if the remedy Appellant seeks in this case is to be through an application for writ of habeas corpus (as opposed to some other extraordinary remedy), then he must seek his habeas corpus relief, not in a district court, but ‘in this Court by invoking this Court’s original habeas jurisdiction.’ I do not understand the Court’s stated limitation on the availability of habeas corpus relief under the circumstances necessarily to preclude Appellant from seeking some other form of extraordinary relief, such as by seeking an application for a writ of prohibition.” Read concurrence.
Commentary:
This opinion concerns only who has subject matter jurisdiction over a method-of-execution claim that a death-row defendant raises in a “constitutional” or “original” writ—the district court where the defendant was convicted, in its capacity as a habeas court, or the Court of Criminal Appeals. Observing that “there are some remedies that district courts simply cannot give[,]” the CCA explains here that the CCA alone has jurisdiction over this type of claim. This opinion is procedural in nature and will likely be interesting predominantly to writ practitioners. But if that’s you, it certainly behooves you to be aware of this case so that you can help ensure that a district court does not take action on this sort of claim.
Hernandez v. State
No. PD-0836-24 9/24/25
Issue:
Can an unsworn motion under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.6 serve as a notice of appeal of a trial court’s ruling on a Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 64 DNA testing request?
Holding:
Not unless the State agrees. A Rule 4.6 motion for extension of time may serve as a notice of appeal of trial court’s ruling on a Chapter 64 DNA testing request if the motion meets certain requirements, including that it be sworn or include an unsworn declaration. Failure to swear to a Rule 4.6 extension motion is a procedural defect that is fatal unless the State agrees to the motion and waives the defect. Here, the defendant’s Rule 4.6 extension motion was fatally defective because it was unsworn and the record does not show that the State agreed to the motion or was even served with it. Further, the defendant’s argument that his unsworn Rule 4.6 extension motion automatically vested the trial court with jurisdiction to rule on the defendant’s Chapter 64 DNA-testing motion was immaterial because the trial court’s jurisdiction was not at issue; rather, only the appellate court’s jurisdiction was contested, and the defendant’s defective Rule 4.6 extension motion did nothing to invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction. Read opinion.
Commentary:
Although appellate courts often treat issues that concern a defendant’s right of appeal leniently, this opinion serves as a reminder that the Rules of Appellate Procedure do matter and that the courts of appeals will enforce them. If your practice involves appellate work, keep opinions like this in mind and diligently check the particular facets of your cases for procedural flaws that might deprive the appellate courts of jurisdiction (e.g., filing deadlines, form or content requirements, etc.). Though jurisdiction is a threshold issue that the appellate courts can raise and address on their own, it is better and more expedient if you bring any such jurisdictional issues to the courts’ attention.
Attorney General Opinion Requests
RQ-0614-KP 9/18/25
Issue:
- Does the exclusion of “a law enforcement agency of a school district” from the definition of “law enforcement agency” in Family Code §261.001(4) (as amended by SB 571 in the 89th Legislative Session) apply only to the specific abuse and neglect reporting requirements under §261.101(b) or all of Family Code Chapter 261?
- Do school district police departments remain qualified to serve as the “appropriate law enforcement agency” under the Family Code for child abuse and neglect investigations occurring within their jurisdiction? Read opinion request.
Requested by:
Sean Teare, Harris County District Attorney
RQ-0616-KP 9/22/25
Issue:
What is the appropriate method to amend a declaration of informal marriage? Read opinion request.
Requested by:
Luis V. Saenz, Cameron County District Attorney
RQ-0617 9/17/25
Issue:
Does HB 4490 from the 89th Legislative Session, which amended Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 49.25, §11(d) to except “information relating to the next of kin of a decedent” from mandatory disclosure prohibit a county medical examiner from disclosing next of kin information to tissue and corneal donation organization for the purpose of facilitating donation? Read opinion request.
Requested by:
Joe Gonzales, Bexar County Criminal District Attorney