Taunton, Thomas Lloyd, PD-0765-15

Appellant Thomas Loyd Taunton was convicted in two cases: one murder (life sentence) and one capital murder (life without parole); convictions and sentences were affirmed by the court of appeals.
At trial, evidence was admitted that had been seized under a warrant the court of appeals later found lacked probable cause. The trial court had denied suppression.
The court of appeals held the warrantless-search determination was constitutional error but deemed the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed convictions.
Taunton petitioned this Court for discretionary review arguing the court of appeals misapplied constitutional-harm analysis (claiming Snowden was not properly followed).
The State responded asking the Court to deny review, arguing the issue is fact-specific, does not present a significant or unresolved legal question, and that the court of appeals correctly applied Rule 44.2(a) and Snowden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals properly applied constitutional-harm analysis (Rule 44.2(a)) after finding the warrant unsupported by probable cause	Taunton: the court of appeals failed to properly assess harm in light of the entire record and misapplied Snowden	State: the court of appeals applied Snowden correctly, considered the totality of the record, and found the seized evidence peripheral and cumulative	Court of appeals’ harmless-error analysis was appropriate; discretionary review should be denied
Whether this Court should grant discretionary review to revisit the appellate harmlessness determination	Taunton: seeks reversal of what he views as legal error by the court of appeals	State: issue is fact-bound, not a significant unresolved question for the Court of Criminal Appeals, and does not merit scarce judicial resources	Deny discretionary review — petitioner seeks error correction of a fact-specific ruling rather than resolution of statewide jurisprudential issue

Bradley v. State, 235 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (role and discretionary nature of Court of Criminal Appeals review)
Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (harmless-error standard for constitutional error; totality of circumstances; no rigid checklist)
Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (previous factors for harm analysis, partially disavowed by Snowden)
Degrate v. State, 712 S.W.2d 755 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (discretionary review is not warranted merely because appellant asserts error)