Stuckey, Tarvarus Deandre
PD-1302-15
| Tex. App. | Oct 2, 2015Background
- Stuckey pled guilty July 19, 2011 and received ten years deferred adjudication for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.
- Post-plea conditions included an unquantified provision for attorney fees in the deferred adjudication order.
- In 2011 amendments added a requirement to pay $3,360 in court-appointed attorney fees.
- The State later sought adjudication, and at adjudication the trial court sentenced Stuckey to twenty years and entered a judgment imposing reparations totaling $6,216.
- The judgment also authorized withdrawal of funds from Stuckey’s inmate trust account to satisfy reparations and court costs; record shows indigency and repeated appointments of appellate counsel.
- On remand, the Seventh Court of Appeals modified and affirmed as modified, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to address whether all reparations issues were properly decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals failed to address all issues on remand. | Stuckey contends the appellate court did not resolve all his complaints as remanded. | Stuckey II/IV maintained the court properly limited review to reparations on remand. | Remand issues must be fully addressed; the court of appeals failed to do so. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. State, 764 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (remand scope cannot be limited by remand order; written opinion required)
- Garrett v. State, 749 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (remand may encompass unassigned preserved error)
- Carmell v. State, 331 S.W.3d 450 (Tex. App. 2010) (review scope on remand broader than explicit remand terms)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (clarifies scope and standard on remand review)
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (analysis of remand review and preserved error)
- Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (indigency and repayment issues; remand context guidance)
- Keehn v. State, 233 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (requires addressing all issues raised on appeal)
- Williams v. State, 145 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2004) (remand review principles cited)