second and third factors in Texas

2011See id.

2008See id.

2008See Bargas, 252 S.W.3d at 893-94 ; Dennis, 178 S.W.3d at 181 .

2008See Bargas, 252 S.W.3d at 893–94.

2008See Dennis, 178 S.W.3d at 181 .

2008See Bargas, 252 S.W.3d at 893-94 ; Dennis, 178 S.W.3d at 181 .

2015See Dupree v. Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 907 S.W.2d 81, 87 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no writ) (" The need for permanence is the paramount consideration for the child's present and future physical and emotional needs." ); see also TEX.

2010See Dupree v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 907 S.W.2d 81, 87 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no writ) (“The need for permanence is the paramount consideration for the child’s present and future physical and emotional needs.”); see also Tex. Fam.

2009See id . at 787-88 (upholding admission of color photos of bullet wounds to victim's head and face); Williams v. State , 958 S.W.2d 186, 196 (Tex. Crim.

2009See id. at 787-88 (upholding admission of color photos of bullet wounds to victim’s head and face); 11 Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186, 196 (Tex. Crim.

2025Ajisebutu v. State, 236 S.W.3d 309, 315 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d).

2024See Archie, 340 S.W.3d at 740-42 (finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of a mistrial following the prosecutor’s comments on the defendant’s failure to testify when the magnitude of the prejudice from the prosecutor’s remarks “was not so great that a jury would necessarily have discounted the trial court’s firm instructions to disregard them.”); see also Lopez v. State, No. 2017 WL 1181294 , at *6 (concluding that the balance of the Mosley factors established that a mistrial was not warranted, even when the prosecutor repeated the challenged statement, because “the magnitu

2024See In re X.R.L., 461 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, no pet.) (“[T]he first Holley factor is neutral because no evidence of the children’s desires was presented.”). 16 Regarding the second and third factors,18 as well as the fourth and eighth factors, the record demonstrates that the twins had ongoing medical needs and that the initial referral in the record notes that two of Mother’s prior children were removed from the home due to failing to provide ongoing medical care for special needs of the children.

2021Notably, while compelling evidence supporting just the second and third factors suffices to demonstrate termination was in the children’s best interests, see In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27 (“undisputed evidence of only one factor may be sufficient to support a finding that termination is in the best interest of the child”), ample evidence supports the additional factors. 3.

2016See Ex parte Moore, 395 S.W.3d 152, 161 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (holding that temporary guest of registered motel guest did not have reasonable expectation of privacy); Padilla, 462 S.W.3d at 123 .

2015Lonza AG v. Blum, 70 S.W.3d 184, 193 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2001, pet. denied) (holding that the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction would not comport with fair play and justice after noting that evidence existed outside the subpoena 26 4851-2191-0817.v1 power of the court).

2014See Graham, 560 U.S. at 60 , 130 S. Ct. at 2022 .

2014See Graham, 560 U.S. at 60 , 130 S. Ct. at 2022 .

2013Solem, 463 U.S. at 392 ; see also Smith, 256 S.W.3d at 344 .

2011See Scott, 227 S.W.3d at 690 ; Gutierrez v. State, 150 S.W.3d 827 , 831–32 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (finding harmless error, even though the erroneously admitted evidence was important to 7 the State’s case, partly because the appellant’s confession corroborated the evidence).

2011Moore v. State , 143 S.W.3d 305, 313 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, pet. ref’d.); Thompson v. State , No. 03-06-00695-CR, 2007 WL 1647830 *3 (Tex. App.—Austin, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

2010Id.; see also Rhodes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 242, 251 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995) (intent to deliver may be inferred from quantity of drugs possessed and from manner in which they were packaged), aff’d, 945 S.W.2d 115 (Tex. Crim.