Linney, Timothy Garrett
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1738
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Linney was convicted of indecency with a child and received eight years’ confinement, probated for eight years.
- On appeal, Linney challenged trial-court rulings limiting cross-examination and admitting hearsay, and asserted cumulative error.
- The court of appeals declined to reach the merits of the cumulative-error claim for want of adequate briefing.
- Linney filed a petition for discretionary review arguing that cumulative error affects substantial rights and requires analysis.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied discretionary review, holding Linney did not adequately brief the cumulative-error issue; a concurring justice clarified briefing standards for Rule 38.1 in such claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the cumulative-error claim adequately briefed on direct appeal? | Linney argued cumulative error affected substantial rights. | State contends the brief failed to specify underlying errors or their synergistic effect. | No; the petition was denied for inadequate briefing. |
| What must a cumulative-error argument show to be reviewable? | Cumulative errors collectively impacted the verdict. | Claim requires identifying specific errors and their synergistic effect. | Independent legal claim; must apply the law to the facts with specificity. |
| Does Rule 38.1 require more detailed briefing for PDRs on cumulative error? | Rule 38.1 considerations apply; argument need not be lengthy. | Precise, fact-specific briefing is required for cumulative-error claims. | Rule 38.1 requires adequate, specific briefing; petition denied for failure to do so. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (cumulative-error standards and briefing requirements)
- Martinez v. El Paso County, 218 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2007) (briefing standards and preservation of error)
- Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (merits of cumulative-error claim require adequate support)
- Maranatha Temple v. Enter. Prods. Co., 893 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (illustrates not every issue merits analysis without sufficient briefing)
- Texas Mexican Ry. v. Bouchet, 963 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. 1998) (general rule cited on thorough briefing and issue presentation)