Lopez claim in Texas

2009See id. at 226 (holding that fact that case involving prior accusation was “closed” was not probative of falsehood of allegation, as “[t]his could simply indicate a lack of evidence to prove the allegation at that time, or an administrative decision that, despite the allegation’s validity, the parties would be best served by closing the case”); see also Garcia v. State, 228 S.W.3d 703, 706 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that “the fact that no charges were filed after a police investigation” did not prove falsity of allegations under Lopez).

2009Id. (holding that complainant’s prior accusation of physical abuse by mother and current allegation of sexual abuse by defendant did not have requisite similarity).

2015And, without that information, he would not have had the information necessary to determine whether, on balance, Lopez’s defense would be aided by each witness.2 See Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 527– 28, 536, 123 S. Ct. 2538 , 2543; Lair, 265 S.W.3d at 595 (“[C]ounsel can only make a reasonable decision to forgo presentation of mitigating evidence after evaluating available testimony and determining it would not be helpful.”).

2015And, without that information, he would not have had the information necessary to determine whether, on balance, Lopez’s defense would be aided by each witness.2 See Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 527– 28, 536, 123 S. Ct. 2538 , 2543; Lair, 265 S.W.3d at 595 (“[C]ounsel can only make a reasonable decision to forgo presentation of mitigating evidence after evaluating available testimony and determining it would not be helpful.”).

2015And, without that information, he would not have had the information necessary to determine whether, on balance, Lopez’s defense would be aided by each witness.2 See Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 527– 28, 536, 123 S. Ct. 2538 , 2543; Lair, 265 S.W.3d at 595 (“[C]ounsel can only make a reasonable decision to forgo presentation of mitigating evidence after evaluating available testimony and determining it would not be helpful.”).

2015And, without that information, he would not have had the information necessary to determine whether, on balance, Lopez’s defense would be aided by each witness.2 See Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 527– 28, 536, 123 S. Ct. 2538 , 2543; Lair, 265 S.W.3d at 595 (“[C]ounsel can only make a reasonable decision to forgo presentation of mitigating evidence after evaluating available testimony and determining it would not be helpful.”).

2015Finally, as previously noted, the trial court signed an order stating that it had reviewed J.S.’s affidavit filed in support of Lopez’s motion for new trial. “[A] trial court may rule [on a motion for new trial] based on sworn pleadings and affidavits without oral testimony; live testimony is not required.” Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761, 763 (Tex. Crim.

2014Finally, as previously noted, the trial court signed an order stating that it had reviewed J.S.’s affidavit filed in support of Lopez’s motion for new trial. “[A] trial court may rule [on a motion for new trial] based on sworn pleadings and affidavits without oral testimony; live testimony is not required.” Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761, 763 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 455 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (applying abuse of discretion standard where trial court allowed motion for new trial to be overruled by operation of law); Frank v. State, 183 S.W.3d 63, 71 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d) (same). - 13 - 04-13-00300-CR DOUBLE JEOPARDY In his final issue, Lopez contends his conviction violates his double jeopardy protections because the factual basis for his prosecution in the underlying case was used as punishment evidence in an earlier trial in which he also was convicted of sexual assault of a different v

2014See Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 455 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (applying abuse of discretion standard where trial court allowed motion for new trial to be overruled by operation of law); Frank v. State, 183 S.W.3d 63, 71 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d) (same). - 13 - 04-13-00300-CR DOUBLE JEOPARDY In his final issue, Lopez contends his conviction violates his double jeopardy protections because the factual basis for his prosecution in the underlying case was used as punishment evidence in an earlier trial in which he also was convicted of sexual assault of a different v

2015“Several courts of appeals have held that a victim’s testimony regarding what punishment should be assessed can properly be excluded from evidence.” Hines v. State, 396 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding testimony was beyond scope of permissibl

2014“Several courts of appeals have held that a victim’s testimony regarding what punishment should be assessed can properly be excluded from evidence.” Hines v. State, 396 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding testimony was beyond scope of permissibl

2015“Several courts of appeals have held that a victim’s testimony regarding what punishment should be assessed can properly be excluded from evidence.” Hines v. State, 396 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding testimony was beyond scope of permissibl

2014“Several courts of appeals have held that a victim’s testimony regarding what punishment should be assessed can properly be excluded from evidence.” Hines v. State, 396 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding testimony was beyond scope of permissibl

2015See Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 455 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (applying abuse of discretion standard where trial court allowed motion for new trial to be overruled by operation of law); Frank v. State, 183 S.W.3d 63, 71 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d) (same). - 13 - 04-13-00300-CR DOUBLE JEOPARDY In his final issue, Lopez contends his conviction violates his double jeopardy protections because the factual basis for his prosecution in the underlying case was used as punishment evidence in an earlier trial in which he also was convicted of sexual assault of a different v

2014See Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 455 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (applying abuse of discretion standard where trial court allowed motion for new trial to be overruled by operation of law); Frank v. State, 183 S.W.3d 63, 71 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d) (same). - 13 - 04-13-00300-CR DOUBLE JEOPARDY In his final issue, Lopez contends his conviction violates his double jeopardy protections because the factual basis for his prosecution in the underlying case was used as punishment evidence in an earlier trial in which he also was convicted of sexual assault of a different v

2015“Several courts of appeals have held that a victim’s testimony regarding what punishment should be assessed can properly be excluded from evidence.” Hines v. State, 396 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding testimony was beyond scope of permissibl

2014“Several courts of appeals have held that a victim’s testimony regarding what punishment should be assessed can properly be excluded from evidence.” Hines v. State, 396 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding testimony was beyond scope of permissibl

2015“Several courts of appeals have held that a victim’s testimony regarding what punishment should be assessed can properly be excluded from evidence.” Hines v. State, 396 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding testimony was beyond scope of permissibl

2014“Several courts of appeals have held that a victim’s testimony regarding what punishment should be assessed can properly be excluded from evidence.” Hines v. State, 396 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding testimony was beyond scope of permissibl

2014See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 ; Riley, 378 S.W.3d at 458 (concluding that erroneous advice regarding availability of probation satisfied first prong of Strickland).

2014See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 ; Riley, 378 S.W.3d at 458 (concluding that erroneous advice regarding availability of probation satisfied first prong of Strickland).

2009See id. at 226 (holding that fact that case involving prior accusation was “closed” was not probative of falsehood of allegation, as “[t]his could simply indicate a lack of evidence to prove the allegation at that time, or an administrative decision that, despite the allegation’s validity, the parties would be best served by closing the case”); see also Garcia v. State, 228 S.W.3d 703, 706 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding that “the fact that no charges were filed after a police investigation” did not prove falsity of allegations under Lopez).

2009See id. at 226 (holding that fact that case involving prior accusation was "closed" was not probative of falsehood of allegation, as "[t]his could simply indicate a lack of evidence to prove the allegation at that time, or an administrative decision that, despite the allegation's validity, the parties would be best served by closing the case"); see also Garcia v. State , 228 S.W.3d 703, 706 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd) (holding that "the fact that no charges were filed after a police investigation" did not prove falsity of allegations under Lopez ).

2008See Anderson v. Gilbert , 897 S.W.2d 783, 784 (Tex. 1995).

2008See Anderson v. Gilbert, 897 S.W.2d 783, 784 (Tex. 1995).

2003See Dinkins , 84 S.W.3d at 643 .

2003See Din-kins, 84 S.W.3d at 643 .

2024She therefore could not later bring a complaint under the TCHRA for the same grievance. 5 See Waffle House, 313 S.W.3d 809–10 (providing that a plaintiff “cannot bring a duplicative claim under the TCHRA” if the plaintiff has filed a claim under “another federal anti-discrimination statute” or sought “a local grievance as expressly allowed under the TCHRA”); Waco, 259 S.W.3d at 156 (“Lopez’s claim—that his employment was terminated in retaliation for alleging that his earlier transfer resulted from age and race discrimination—falls squarely under the [T]CHRA, which provides his exclusive state

2011The court concluded that Lopez’s claim that his employment was terminated in retaliation for complaining that an earlier adverse employment action was the result of age and race discrimination fell “squarely under the CHRA, which provides his exclusive state statutory remedy.” Id. at 156 .

2025See Fieldtech Avionics & Instruments, Inc., 262 S.W.3d at 824 .

2024See Hale v. State, 139 S.W.3d 418 , 421–22 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (“The admission of a testimonial statement by an accomplice or codefendant as evidence of guilt of the defendant on trial, absent opportunity by the defendant to cross examine the declarant, is ‘sufficient to make out a violation of the Sixth Amendment.’” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004))). 11 In back-and-forth filings leading up to the hearing, the parties disputed whether evidence presented at Garza’s trial was relevant to Lopez’s motion.

2024See Hale v. State, 139 S.W.3d 418 , 421–22 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (“The admission of a testimonial statement by an accomplice or codefendant as evidence of guilt of the defendant on trial, absent opportunity by the defendant to cross examine the declarant, is ‘sufficient to make out a violation of the Sixth Amendment.’” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004))). 11 In back-and-forth filings leading up to the hearing, the parties disputed whether evidence presented at Garza’s trial was relevant to Lopez’s motion.

2023See id.

2022See Ray, 178 S.W.3d at 846 .

2022See Melgar v. State, 236 S.W.3d 302, 309 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st.

2022See Baker v. Baker, 469 S.W.3d 269, 272 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.).

2020See Lake v. State, 532 S.W.3d 408, 416-17 (Tex. Crim.

2020See, e.g., Hargrove, 45 P.3d at 383 ; Currier, 836 F.2d at 16 ; see also, e.g., Black, 30 N.E.3d at 926 . 22 Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez’s motion to dismiss based on a lack of compliance with Article IV of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 51.14.