Criminal Law—The SCOTX Report

23-1028·Other

A juvenile court's finding under Family Code § 54.02(j)(4)(A) that it was not "practicable" for the State to proceed before an accused turned eighteen is not decided solely by whether probable cause existed before that birthday; other reasons beyond the State's control can support the finding.
Because the juvenile court's findings blended the two alternative grounds and relied on the later development of probable cause, the Court reversed the court of appeals' dismissal and remanded for a new transfer hearing.

24-0023·Petition For Review

The Court vacated and remanded a lifetime firearm ban in a stalking-based protective order so the court of appeals can reconsider Noyes's Second Amendment challenge in light of United States v. Rahimi, which it did not have when it ruled.
The Court held Noyes's constitutional challenges were sufficiently preserved; two concurrences (Sullivan and Hawkins) accompany the per curiam order.

24-0258·Petition For Review

Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) requires a nonmovant to "produce" summary-judgment evidence, not to "attach" it: a response to a no-evidence motion that discusses and points the trial court to evidence already in the record, even if not attached, produces that evidence, and the trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to consider it.
Evidence that a party first attached to its own pleading (here, the State's supporting officer affidavit filed with its forfeiture notice) is not disqualified from use on summary judgment merely for that reason, and the State's response summarizing the affidavit sufficiently pointed it out.

24-0573·Other

The Texas attorney general has constitutional authority under Article IV, § 22 to file a quo warranto action seeking revocation of a corporation's charter based on alleged criminal acts, here knowingly harboring illegal aliens, and neither Business Organizations Code § 11.301(a)(5) nor Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 66 expressly limits it; on a motion for leave, the trial court asks only whether the petition states a cause of action, not how the evidence weighs.
Neither RFRA, federal preemption nor vagueness justified denying leave to file, and Business Organizations Code §§ 12.151-.152, which let the attorney general demand corporate records "immediately," are not facially unconstitutional under City of Los Angeles v. Patel because "immediately" does not foreclose precompliance review, so the Court vacated the injunction against further records requests.

24-0918·Petition For Review

The Court granted the petition for review in a sexually-violent-predator civil commitment, vacated the judgments of the court of appeals and trial court, and dismissed the case as moot on Lonnie Encalade's own motion, without reaching the merits.

25-0229·Petition For Review

In a discretionary transfer of a juvenile over eighteen under Family Code § 54.02(j)(4)(A), does "not practicable to proceed in juvenile court before the 18th birthday" mean the State could not reasonably begin and carry on the case, or does it look at the overall progression of the case?
Must the sufficiency review consider events after the juvenile's eighteenth birthday, given the juvenile court's retained jurisdiction under § 51.0412?

25-0792·Petition For Review

Whether a juvenile's signed incriminating statement is admissible under Family Code section 51.095 when law enforcement officers were within sight of the magistrate and juvenile during the magistrate's examination, outside a building that houses a jail, but could not hear the conversation.
Whether the court of appeals violated appellate standards of review by conducting its own de novo visual review of body-camera footage and substituting its judgment for the trial court's record-supported findings of historical fact.

26-0030·Mandamus

A trial court clearly abused its discretion by sua sponte removing the public defender's office as a parent's chosen counsel in a parental-termination case; Article 26.044 does not bar the office from representing her there.
Because the office acted as chosen counsel, not court-appointed counsel, the court lacked authority to remove it; the Court conditionally granted mandamus without argument.

26-0110·Petition For Review

The Court granted the Attorney General's petition for review and, on the parties' joint motion, vacated the Fifteenth Court of Appeals' judgment and dismissed the case as moot, ending a challenge to Attorney General rules requiring local prosecutors to report to his office.
The vacated decision had held an agency's rulemaking power cannot be conferred by implication and affirmed a temporary injunction against the rules.