Hernandez v. State
| Decision Date | 07 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 1214-97,1214-97 |
| Citation | 957 S.W.2d 851 |
| Parties | Ignacio HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Keith S. Hampton, Cynthia L. Hampton, Austin, for appellant.
Jonathan Stick, Asst. Dist. Atty., Matthew Paul, State's Atty., Austin, for State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
A jury convicted Appellant of capital murder. The State did not seek the death penalty, so Appellant was sentenced to confinement for life. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Hernandez v. State, 952 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.App.--Austin 1997).
On appeal, Appellant alleged his oral and written confessions were involuntary. He asked the Court of Appeals to review the issue de novo, but the Court of Appeals declined and followed DuBose v. State, 915 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Cr.App.1996).
The second ground of Appellant's petition for discretionary review asserts the Court of Appeals erred in failing to conduct a de novo review. This Court recently stated:
[A]ppellate courts, including this Court, should afford almost total deference to a trial court's determination of the historical facts that the records supports, especially when the trial court's fact findings are based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. The appellate courts, including this Court, should afford the same amount of deference to trial courts' rulings on "applications of law to fact questions," also known as "mixed questions of law and fact," if the resolution of those ultimate questions turns on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. The appellate courts may review de novo "mixed questions of law and fact" not falling within this category.
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1997).
When the Court of Appeals issued its ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lopez v. State
...do not fall within this category, an appellate court may conduct a de novo review of the trial court's ruling. Hernandez v. State, 957 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) (citing Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89). In other words de novo review applies when the facts are undisputed. State v. Jennings,......
-
Preiss v. Moritz
...App.--Austin 1998, no pet.); Hernandez v. State, 952 S.W.2d 59, 71 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997), vacated on other grounds by 957 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Hernandez involved a case where a prospective juror was specifically asked during voir dire whether she had been convicted of theft......
-
Scaggs v. State
...the defendant to a new trial. See Hernandez v. State, 952 S.W.2d 59, 74 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997), remanded on other grounds, 957 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). When a trial court does not conduct a hearing on a motion for new trial, an appellate court must determine whether the motion an......
-
Jimenez v. State
...this category. Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89. Guzman applies to appellate review of a motion to suppress a confession. Hernandez v. State, 957 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Tex.Crim.App.1998); Gomes v. State, 9 S.W.3d 373, 376 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. In the present case, the only evidence p......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...significant harm beyond the mere fact of conviction. Hernandez v. State, 952 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.App.—Austin 1997), vacated on other grounds , 957 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Where at the motion for new trial hearing the defendant made no attempt to show significant harm, he has failed to......
-
Table of Cases
...1997, pet. ref’d ), §§14:68.2.1, 14:154.3, 15:163.2 Hernandez v. State, 952 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.App.—Austin 1997), vacated on other grounds , 957 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), §§14:33, 14:92 Hernandez v. State, 963 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet .), §3:20 Hernandez v. State, ......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...harm beyond the mere fact of conviction. Hernandez v. State, 952 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997), vacated on other grounds , 957 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Where at the motion for new trial hearing the defendant made no attempt to show significant harm, he has failed to meet his b......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...significant harm beyond the mere fact of conviction. Hernandez v. State, 952 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.App.—Austin 1997), vacated on other grounds , 957 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Where at the motion for new trial hearing the defendant made no attempt to show significant harm, he has failed to......