unassigned error in Texas

2013Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360, 369 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) ("In the case of a double-jeopardy violation, the issue may be addressed as an unassigned error when the violation is apparent from the face of the record.”); Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (“[A] double jeopardy claim may be raised for the first time on appeal or even for the first time on collateral attack when the undisputed facts show the double jeopardy violation is clearly apparent on the face of the record and when enforcement of usual rules of procedural default serves no legitimate state interests.”) (foo

2013Moreover, “[i]n the case of a double-jeopardy violation, the issue may be addressed as an unassigned error when the violation is apparent from the face of the record.” Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 369 ; see Rangel v. State, 179 S.W.3d 64, 70 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, pet. ref'd) (“However, an appellant may raise a double jeopardy claim for the first time on appeal (1) when the undisputed facts show the double jeopardy claim violation is clearly apparent from the face of the record, and (2) when the enforcement of the usual rules of procedural default serve no legitimate state purpose.”).

2023App. 2008) (“In the case of a double-jeopardy violation, the issue may be addressed as an unassigned error when the violation is apparent from the face of the record.” (citing Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. Crim.

2019App. 2008) (“In the case of a double-jeopardy violation, the issue may be addressed as an unassigned error when the violation is apparent from the face of the record.” (citing Gonzales v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. Crim.

2024App. 2019) (not designated for publication) (“Generally, ‘appellate courts are free to review ‘unassigned error’ – a claim that was preserved in the trial court below but was not raised on appeal.’ However, errors that are subject to procedural default may not be remedied by the appellate court as unassigned error unless the error was in fact preserved in the trial court.”) (citing Sanchez v. Heath – 9 court that counsel’s discovery request was inadequate or failed to trigger its duty under Article 39.14. 16 Thus, we held the issue was not preserved and 15F the court of appeals erred to reach

2024App. 2019) (not designated for publication) (“Generally, ‘appellate courts are free to review ‘unassigned error’ – a claim that was preserved in the trial court below but was not raised on appeal.’ However, errors that are subject to procedural default may not be remedied by the appellate court as unassigned error unless the error was in fact preserved in the trial court.”) (citing Sanchez v. Heath – 9 court that counsel’s discovery request was inadequate or failed to trigger its duty under Article 39.14. 16 Thus, we held the issue was not preserved and 15F the court of appeals erred to reach

2012Although the Alliance does not argue on appeal that the court’s judgment is void, it has long been held that courts of appeals may reverse the judgment of a trial court for an unassigned error if the error is truly “fundamental.” See Ramsey v. Dunlop, 146 Tex. 196 , 205 S.W.2d 979, 982-83 (1947). “[Wjhen the record affirmatively and conclusively shows that the court rendering the judgment was without jurisdiction of the subject matter, the error will also be regarded as fundamental.” McCauley v. Consol.

2012Although the Alliance does not argue on appeal that the court’s judgment is void, it has long been held that courts of appeals may reverse the judgment of a trial court for an unassigned error if the error is truly “fundamental.” See Ramsey v. Dunlop, 146 Tex. 196 , 205 S.W.2d 979, 982-83 (1947). “[Wjhen the record affirmatively and conclusively shows that the court rendering the judgment was without jurisdiction of the subject matter, the error will also be regarded as fundamental.” McCauley v. Consol.

2024App. 2006) (quoting Pena v. State, 191 S.W.3d 133, 136 (Tex. Crim.

2015Similarly, only in rare circumstances may a court of appeals sua sponte decide “unassigned error.” Unassigned error refers to “a claim that was preserved in the trial below but was not raised on appeal.” See Pena v. State, 191 S.W.3d 133, 136 (Tex. Crim.

2012Underwriters, Inc., 157 Tex. 475 , 304 S.W.2d 265, 266 (1957); see also In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 290-92 (Tex.2002) (O’Neill, J., dissenting) (discussing fundamental-error doctrine). ‘With ‘jurisdictional-based’ fundamental— error review, an appellate court may reverse the judgment of the court below for error-without conducting a review for harm — even if the error is not preserved.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 291 (O’Neill, J., dissenting) (citing Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.1984)).

2012Underwriters, Inc., 157 Tex. 475 , 304 S.W.2d 265, 266 (1957); see also In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 290-92 (Tex.2002) (O’Neill, J., dissenting) (discussing fundamental-error doctrine). ‘With ‘jurisdictional-based’ fundamental— error review, an appellate court may reverse the judgment of the court below for error-without conducting a review for harm — even if the error is not preserved.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 291 (O’Neill, J., dissenting) (citing Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.1984)).

2012Underwriters, Inc., 157 Tex. 475 , 304 S.W.2d 265, 266 (1957); see also In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 290-92 (Tex.2002) (O’Neill, J., dissenting) (discussing fundamental-error doctrine). ‘With ‘jurisdictional-based’ fundamental— error review, an appellate court may reverse the judgment of the court below for error-without conducting a review for harm — even if the error is not preserved.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 291 (O’Neill, J., dissenting) (citing Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.1984)).

2012Underwriters, Inc., 157 Tex. 475 , 304 S.W.2d 265, 266 (1957); see also In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 290-92 (Tex.2002) (O’Neill, J., dissenting) (discussing fundamental-error doctrine). ‘With ‘jurisdictional-based’ fundamental— error review, an appellate court may reverse the judgment of the court below for error-without conducting a review for harm — even if the error is not preserved.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 291 (O’Neill, J., dissenting) (citing Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.1984)).

2013Moreover, “[i]n the case of a double-jeopardy violation, the issue may be addressed as an unassigned error when the violation is apparent from the face of the record.” Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 369 ; see Rangel v. State, 179 S.W.3d 64, 70 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, pet. ref’d) (“However, an appellant may raise a double jeopardy claim for the first time on appeal (1) when the undisputed facts show the double jeopardy claim violation is clearly apparent from the face of the record, and (2) when the enforcement of the usual rules of procedural default serve no legitimate state purpose.”).

2013Moreover, “[i]n the case of a double-jeopardy violation, the issue may be addressed as an unassigned error when the violation is apparent from the face of the record.” Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 369 ; see Rangel v. State, 179 S.W.3d 64, 70 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005, pet. ref'd) (“However, an appellant may raise a double jeopardy claim for the first time on appeal (1) when the undisputed facts show the double jeopardy claim violation is clearly apparent from the face of the record, and (2) when the enforcement of the usual rules of procedural default serve no legitimate state purpose.”).

2013Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360, 369 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) ("In the case of a double-jeopardy violation, the issue may be addressed as an unassigned error when the violation is apparent from the face of the record.”); Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (“[A] double jeopardy claim may be raised for the first time on appeal or even for the first time on collateral attack when the undisputed facts show the double jeopardy violation is clearly apparent on the face of the record and when enforcement of usual rules of procedural default serves no legitimate state interests.”) (foo

2013Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360, 369 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) ("In the case of a double-jeopardy violation, the issue may be addressed as an unassigned error when the violation is apparent from the face of the record.”); Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (“[A] double jeopardy claim may be raised for the first time on appeal or even for the first time on collateral attack when the undisputed facts show the double jeopardy violation is clearly apparent on the face of the record and when enforcement of usual rules of procedural default serves no legitimate state interests.”) (foo

2006Agency v. Burke, 711 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Tex.1986). [2] To elude the unassigned error constraint with regard to a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, an appeals court might take the position that the motion's failure to fulfill the specificity requirements for such a motion transforms it into a traditional motion and then reverse it for its failure to sustain the higher standard of proof applicable thereto. [1] The motion arguably had another defect because it was very misleading.

2006Agency v. Burke , 711 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Tex. 1986). [2] To elude the unassigned error constraint with regard to a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, an appeals court might take the position that the motion = s failure to fulfill the specificity requirements for such a motion transforms it into a traditional motion and then reverse it for its failure to sustain the higher standard of proof applicable thereto.

2002See Gonzalez v. State, 588 S.W.2d 574, 575 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (“[W]e find an unassigned error which should be reviewed in the interest of justice that is dispositive of the appeal and, accordingly, do not directly address the ground of error that is advanced.”).

2002See Gonzalez v. State, 588 S.W.2d 574, 575 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979) ("[W]e find an unassigned error which should be reviewed in the interest of justice that is dispositive of the appeal and, accordingly, do not directly address the ground of error that is advanced.").

2002Lee, 555 S.W.2d at 122 ; see Leal v. State, 626 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1981, no pet.) (reversing and remanding on an unassigned error in a fatal variance between the indictment and the charge).

2002Lee, 555 S.W.2d at 122 ; see Leal v. State, 626 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1981, no pet.) (reversing and remanding on an unassigned error in a fatal variance between the indictment and the charge).

1985See Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

1984Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468 (Tex.Crim.App.1983).

1979Appellate courts may, in rare situations, consider an unassigned error, but only if the error can be properly classified as “fundamental error.” Texas Power & Light Co. v. Cole, 158 Tex. 495 , 313 S.W.2d 524, 529 (1958); Wright v. Gernandt, 559 S.W.2d 864, 872 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1977, no writ).

1979Appellate courts may, in rare situations, consider an unassigned error, but only if the error can be properly classified as “fundamental error.” Texas Power & Light Co. v. Cole, 158 Tex. 495 , 313 S.W.2d 524, 529 (1958); Wright v. Gernandt, 559 S.W.2d 864, 872 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1977, no writ).

2018Severance v. Patterson, 370 S.W.3d 705, 709 (Tex. 2012) (stressing “fundamental” nature of property rights). 5 The court of criminal appeals exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over capital cases involving the death penalty.

2015State v. Bailey, 201 S.W.3d 739, 744 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).

2012Paselk v. Rabun, 293 S.W.3d 600, 612 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2009, pet. denied); 6 McDonald & Carlson, Texas Civil Practice § 38:3, 1025 (2d ed.1998); see Tex.R.App.

2012Underwriters, Inc., 157 Tex. 475 , 304 S.W.2d 265, 266 (1957); see also In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 290-92 (Tex.2002) (O’Neill, J., dissenting) (discussing fundamental-error doctrine). ‘With ‘jurisdictional-based’ fundamental— error review, an appellate court may reverse the judgment of the court below for error-without conducting a review for harm — even if the error is not preserved.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 291 (O’Neill, J., dissenting) (citing Baker v. Hansen, 679 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.1984)).

2000See State v. Shepard, 920 S.W.2d 420, 422 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd).

1983In Garret v. State, 624 S.W.2d 953, 958 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1981, pet. granted), rev’d and remanded, 642 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), this Court applied the unassigned error rule and held that the failure to apply the law of transferred intent to the part of the charge dealing with the lesser and included offenses of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter constituted fundamental error.