Hernandez v. State
Cases that cite this one
121 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Preiss v. Moritz (Tex. App. 2001)
- Morris Daniel Beaver v. State (Tex. App. 2000)
- Perez, Guadalupe Guy v. State (Tex. App. 1999)
- Arty Price v. State (Tex. App. 2015)
- Hall, John (Tex. App. 2015)
- Patrick Damar McGowan v. State (Tex. App. 2013)
- White v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)
- Gomes v. State (Tex. App. 2000)
- Larry Duarte v. State (Tex. App. 2000)
- Mark Perkins v. State (Tex. App. 2000)
- Sheldon Wayne Oku v. State (Tex. App. 1999)
- Johnson v. State (Tex. App. 2012)
- Benjamin Rogers v. State (Tex. App. 2011)
- Benjamin Rogers v. State (Tex. App. 2011)
- Wilton Larron Mahaffey v. State (Tex. App. 2011)
- Reyes v. State (Tex. App. 2009)
- Ronald Shipp v. State (Tex. App. 2009)
- Ronald Shipp v. State (Tex. App. 2009)
- Errick Charles Cheeks v. State (Tex. App. 2009)
- Errick Charles Cheeks v. State (Tex. App. 2009)
- Wilton Larron Mahaffey v. State (Tex. App. 2009)
- Wilton Larron Mahaffey v. State (Tex. App. 2009)
- William Earl Overturf v. State (Tex. App. 2009)
- William Earl Overturf v. State (Tex. App. 2009)
- State v. Williams (Tex. App. 2008)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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:
[Ajppellate 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 opinion in the instant ease, it did not have the benefit of our opinion in Guzman. We grant Appellant’s petition for discretionary review on the second ground, vacate the Court of Appeals’ judgment, and remand this ease to that court for reconsideration in light of Guzman. Appellant’s first ground for review is dismissed without prejudice.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.