You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Elizabeth Anne Rohr v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-04-00458-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 22, 2006; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves Elizabeth Anne Rohr's appeal against three convictions for animal cruelty adjudicated by the County Court at Law of Wise County. In two cases, her deferred adjudication community supervision was revoked, and she was adjudicated guilty for offenses committed in 2002. In the third case, she was convicted pursuant to a plea bargain for an offense in 2004. The appellate court highlighted limitations on appealing the revocation of deferred adjudication, restricting it to jurisdictional defects and post-adjudication issues unrelated to the conviction itself. For the plea-bargained conviction, appeals were confined to pre-trial motions or matters sanctioned by the trial court. Rohr failed to present valid arguments or citations in her appellate brief, which did not meet the court's requirements for substantive appellate review. Consequently, the appellate court overruled her complaints, denied her motion to void the judgment and dismiss with prejudice, and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The ruling was delivered by a panel including Chief Justice Cayce and Justices Gardner and Walker on February 23, 2006.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appeals of Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision

Application: The appeal of a trial court's adjudication of deferred adjudication community supervision is limited to jurisdictional defects and post-adjudication matters unrelated to the conviction.

Reasoning: The court notes that appeals challenging the trial court's adjudication of deferred adjudication community supervision are restricted to jurisdictional defects and post-adjudication matters unrelated to the conviction, meaning that the adjudication itself is not appealable.

Court's Role in Reviewing Appeals

Application: The court is not responsible for searching the record to substantiate an appellant's claims.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that it is not responsible for searching the record to substantiate an appellant's claims.

Limitations on Plea-Bargain Appeals

Application: In cases resolved by plea bargains, appeals are restricted to issues raised by pre-trial written motions or those for which the trial court granted permission to appeal.

Reasoning: In the third case, because of the plea-bargain agreement, her appeal is restricted to issues raised by pre-trial written motions or those for which the trial court granted permission to appeal.

Requirements for Appellate Briefs

Application: Appellate briefs must present clear arguments related to allowable appeal matters and provide appropriate citations to legal authorities or the appellate record.

Reasoning: Rohr's appellate brief failed to present clear arguments related to the allowable appeal matters, nor did it provide appropriate citations to legal authorities or the appellate record.