DeSergio Geterus Parrish v. State, 14-14-00828-CR

Parrish, a former history teacher and coach at Jack Yates High School, was indicted for engaging in an improper relationship with a student (sexual contact) alleged to have occurred around January 9, 2012.
Investigators played a school surveillance videotape showing Parrish talking with a female student after hours; focus later shifted to the complainant.
Investigators recorded Parrish admitting to two occasions of sexual contact with the complainant during a December 18, 2013 interview; Parrish later testified he lied during that interview.
Complainant reportedly made out-of-court disclosures to officers; complainant’s mother confirmed Parrish transported the student from track practice and had previously mentioned rumors involving Parrish and the student.
On the day jury selection began (October 3, 2014), Parrish filed a federal notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1455; the state court entered final judgment October 9, 2014, and the federal court remanded October 24, 2014.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Parrish)	Held
Whether the state court’s judgment is void because Parrish filed a §1455 notice of removal before judgment	The filing did not deprive the state court of jurisdiction because the removal was defective/untimely and federal court never assumed jurisdiction	The notice of removal divested the state court of power to enter judgment until the federal court remanded, so the judgment is void	Court held the state court did not lose jurisdiction; authority supports state court’s entry of judgment before remand; issue overruled
Whether the evidence was insufficient under the corpus delicti rule because Parrish’s confession was not corroborated by independent evidence	The State argued there was independent evidence (teacher/student relationship, videotape, complainant disclosures, mother’s testimony) sufficient to corroborate that an offense occurred	Parrish argued his recorded admissions were the only evidence of the offense and absent corroboration his confession alone cannot support conviction	Court held independent circumstantial evidence existed to satisfy corpus delicti (e.g., relationship, videotape, disclosures); evidence sufficient; issue overruled

Miller v. State, 457 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (corpus delicti rule and requirement for independent evidence to corroborate confession)
Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (describing corpus delicti principle)
Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (quantum of independent evidence required to show offense more probable)
Gribble v. State, 808 S.W.2d 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (plurality on low threshold for corroborating evidence)
Fountain v. State, 401 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (applying corpus delicti standard on review)
McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (State may prove corpus delicti by circumstantial evidence)
Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (unchallenged hearsay may be considered in evaluating sufficiency)
Seaton v. Jabe, 992 F.2d 79 (6th Cir. 1993) (untimely removal petition found not to divest state court jurisdiction)
U.S. ex rel. Walker v. Gunn, 511 F.2d 1024 (9th Cir. 1975) (federal court lacked jurisdiction to decide merits of untimely removal)
State v. Cegielski, 368 N.W.2d 628 (Wis. 1985) (review of effect of removal/remand on validity of state court judgment)