Rohr v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Neal v. State

    No. 06-20-00045-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 5, 2020)

    Consequently, we are "required to determine 'whether the evidence embraces each essential element of the offense charged.'" Flores-Alonzo v. State, 460 S.W.3d 197, 203 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, no pet.) (quoting Rohr v. State, No. 08-12-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *2 (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.) (not designated for publication)). "The failure to comply with [Article 1.15] does not constitute a federal constitutional violation."

  2. Urrutia v. State

    No. 08-18-00035-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 25, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    And the exclusion of cumulative evidence is generally not an abuse of discretion. See Lopez, 18 S.W.3d at 222; Ho, 171 S.W.3d at 304 (trial court did not err in excluding out-of-court confrontation between witnesses and defendant's family when the jury was already aware of animosity between the two); Rohr v. State, No. 08-12-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *8 (Tex.App.--El Paso Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.)(not designated for publication)(claimed limitation on cross-examination not error when fact finder was "fully aware of Appellant's defensive theory"). Appellant focuses here, as he did below, on the final paragraph of the demand letter which arguably threatens Appellant with deportation.

  3. Ex parte Atkinson

    No. 06-18-00068-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 12, 2018)

    "The entry of a valid guilty plea has the effect of admitting all material facts alleged in the formal criminal charge." Flores-Alonzo v. State, 460 S.W.3d 197, 203 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, no pet.) (quoting Rohr v. State, No. 08-12-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.)). "With one exception not applicable here, a plea of nolo contendere or 'no contest' has the same legal effect as a guilty plea." Id. (quoting Rohr, 2014 WL 4438828, at *1); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 27.02(5) (West 2006).

  4. Petrea v. State

    No. 06-18-00075-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 19, 2018)   Cited 2 times
    In Petrea, we found that when an indictment, as here, alleged all the elements of the charged offense, a sworn judicial confession that asserted that the defendant "had reviewed and understood the indictment and everything contained in it, stated that he committed and was guilty of each allegation made in the indictment, and... attested that all facts alleged in the indictment were true and correct" was sufficient to support the defendant's guilty plea.

    In a unitary trial, all of the evidence admitted may both substantiate the defendant's plea and allow the trial court to determine the proper sentence. Flores-Alonzo v. State, 460 S.W.3d 197, 203 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, no pet.) (citing Rohr v. State, No. 08-12-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.) (not designated for publication)). Further, when a PSI report is prepared, the trial court may take judicial notice of unobjected-to facts contained within the PSI report.

  5. Kuzbary v. State

    NO. 14-17-00146-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 26, 2018)

    ; Rohr v. State, No. 08-12-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *3 (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.) (not designated for publication) ("The right of an accused to cross-examine a testifying state's witness includes the right to impeach the witness with relevant evidence that might reflect bias, interest, prejudice, inconsistent statements, traits of character affecting credibility, or evidence that might go to any impairment or disability affecting the witness's credibility.").

  6. Zuniga v. State

    No. 08-14-00153-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 21, 2016)   Cited 2 times
    In Zuniga, the State charged the defendant with committing two predicate murders "as a member of a criminal street gang, to wit: Barrio Azteca."

    Accordingly, we review a trial court's ruling limiting the cross-examination of a witness under an abuse of discretion standard. Billodeau v. State, 277 S.W.3d 34, 39 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009); Rohr v. State, No. 08-12-00219-CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *3 (Tex.App.--El Paso, Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.)(not designated for publication). Generally, the right to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses under the Sixth Amendment does not conflict with the corresponding rights under state evidentiary rules. United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 316, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998); Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 660-62 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002).

  7. Flores-Alonzo v. State

    460 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App. 2015)   Cited 19 times

    “When a defendant waives his right to a jury trial and enters a no contest plea on a non-capital offense, the proceeding is no longer bifurcated with separate guilt-innocence and punishment phases.” Rohr v. State, No. 08–12–00219–CR, 2014 WL 4438828, at *1 (Tex.App.—El Paso Sept. 10, 2014, no pet.) (citing Gomez v. State, 399 S.W.3d 604, 606 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2013, pet. ref'd) ); Saldana v. State, 150 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex.App.—Austin 2004, no pet.).