2. DID THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN DETERMINING THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS WITHOUT DISCRETION TO DENY CREDIT FOR THE TIME SERVED ON THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE TOWARD THE DAYS ORDERED AS A CONDITION OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AFTER RETRIAL?

4. Whether a Complaint on Appeal That "No Analysis of the Merits of Appellant's Plea Hearings Is Possible Without the Reporter's Record" Can Be Construed under Appellate Rule 38.9 to Mean That Appellate Counsel Cannot Review the Effectiveness of Trial Counsel; If Not, Has the Court of Appeals Exceeded its Authority under Rule 38.9 to Say That it Does?

3. DID RESPONDENT’S SWEEPING COMMENTS IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE OFFENSE BECAUSE HE WAS A MINISTER AND HAD IMPECCABLE CHARACTER AUTHORIZE THE STATE TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF EXTRANEOUS BAD ACTS TO REBUT THAT CLAIM?

3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN BASING ITS HOLDING OF ADMISSIBILITY ON A DE NOVO REVIEW OF THE RECORD.

2. Assuming the Court below Correctly Determined That the Right in Question Is a Waivable Right Within the Meaning of Marin, Did it Nevertheless Erroneously Reform the Judgment by Deleting the Deadly Weapon Finding under the Circumstances Because of its (A) Erroneous Finding That Appellant Did Not by His Actions Waive His Complaint That the Right in Question Was Violated or (B) Erroneous Failure to Find That Appellant Otherwise Had Adequate Notice of the State’s Intent to Seek a Deadly Weapon Finding Where Appellant Was Given an Opportunity to Review the Proposed Charge Containing the Deadly Weapon Special Issue at the Charge Conference at the Guilt-innocence Stage of His Trial and Failed to Object or Otherwise Complain And/or Make a Motion or Request for a Continuance on the Basis of a Violation of the Right in Question (1) at the Charge Conference, (2) at the Time the Trial Court Submitted the Special Issue to the Jury, (3) at the Time the Jury’s Verdict Affirmatively Answering the Special Issue Was Read in Open Court, And/or (4) at Sentencing When the Trial Court Announced in Open Court That a Deadly Weapon Finding Based on the Jury’s Answer to the Special Issue Would Be Included in the Judgment?

3. WHERE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY OVERRULES A PRETRIAL MOTION THAT DENIES APPELLANT HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND APPELLANT SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERS A GUILTY PLEA TO DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY APPLYING THE HARMLESS-ERROR TEST OF TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(A)?

Ed. Note: See also companion PDRs granted in David Woodall, Gabriel Williams, Gabriel Contreras, April Harlow, Alfonso R. Rodriguez, Terry Holmes, and Walter Widener, Jr.

4. IN THIS ATTEMPTED ARSON CASE, DID THE COURT OF APPEALS EFFECTIVELY REQUIRE THAT THE STATE PROVE THAT EVERY ACT SHORT OF ACTUAL COMMISSION OF ARSON BE ACCOMPLISHED?

2. Can the Trial Court Disregard Article 2.07, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and Appoint an Attorney Pro Tem to Serve Beyond the Disqualification of the State's Attorney.

2. CAN A TRIAL COURT CORRECT A JUDGMENT AS TO BACK-TIME CREDIT BY A JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC.

3. WHERE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY OVERRULES A PRETRIAL MOTION THAT DENIES APPELLANT HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND APPELLANT SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERS A GUILTY PLEA TO DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY APPLYING THE HARMLESS-ERROR TEST OF TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(A)?

Ed. Note: See also companion PDRs granted in David Woodall, Gabriel Williams, Terry Holmes, April Harlow, Alfonso R. Rodriguez, Michael Brice, and Walter Widener, Jr.

3. Didn’t the Court of Appeals Err in Holding That Because Case Law Interpreting Section 3.03 of the Penal Code Simply States That Section 3.03 Does Not Apply to Fines, the Trial Court Had Jurisdiction to Not Cumulate the Fines?

2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OF PETITIONER’S PUNISHMENT WITHIN THE RANGE FOR A THIRD DEGREE FELONY BECAUSE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF A STATE JAIL FELONY AND THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ENHANCED THE PUNISHMENT RANGE TO A THIRD DEGREE FELONY BASED ON A FINDING, THAT WAS NEVER MADE, THE AT PETITIONER USED A DEADLY WEAPON IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.

2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF STATE LAW IN A WAY THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.

7. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN HOLDING THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES PURSUANT TO RULE 404(B) WHEN THE EVIDENCE IN QUESTION WAS ACTUALLY ADMISSIBLE AS SAME TRANSACTION CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE?

3. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE POLICE HEREIN CONSTITUTED A DETENTION REQUIRING REASONABLE SUSPICION.

3. THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES THAT THE DISSENTING OPINIONS IN WATSON V. STATE, 204 S.W.3D 404 (TEX.CRIM.APP. 2006), WERE CORRECT: CLEWIS SHOULD BE ABANDONED.

3. WHERE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY OVERRULES A PRETRIAL MOTION THAT DENIES APPELLANT HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND APPELLANT SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERS A GUILTY PLEA TO DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY APPLYING THE HARMLESS-ERROR TEST OF TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(A)?

Ed. Note: See also companion PDRs granted in David Woodall, Gabriel Williams, Gabriel Contreras, Terry Holmes, Alfonso R. Rodriguez, Michael Brice, and Walter Widener, Jr.

4. The Majority Opinion Should Be Reversed Because the Franks Violations Found by the Majority Opinion on Appeal Were Not Properly Preserved by Appellant at Trial.

2. WHETHER THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION HIGHLIGHTS A CONTINUING CONFLICT NEEDING RESOLUTION AMONG LOWER COURTS, INITIATED BEFORE AND CONTINUING SINCE THIS COURT'S OPINION IN HROMADKA, WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER A TRIAL COURT ERRS BY DENYING A DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED ARTICLE 38.23 JURY INSTRUCTION IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE DEFENDANT AFFIRMATIVELY STATED HE HAD "NO OBJECTION" TO THE EVIDENCE AT ISSUE WHEN OFFERED DURING TRIAL.

3. WHERE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY OVERRULES A PRETRIAL MOTION THAT DENIES APPELLANT HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND APPELLANT SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERS A GUILTY PLEA TO DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY APPLYING THE HARMLESS-ERROR TEST OF TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(A)?

Ed. Note: See also companion PDRs granted in David Woodall, Gabriel Williams, Gabriel Contreras, April Harlow, Alfonso R. Rodriguez, Michael Brice, and Walter Widener, Jr.

2. HAVING FOUND THE EXISTENCE OF ERROR WHERE THREE SEPARATE OFFENSES WERE CHARGED, BUT NO INSTRUCTION GIVEN THAT THE JURY MUST BE UNANIMOUS AS TO ONE OFFENSE, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE STRENGTH OF THE STATE'S CASE AND FAILING OTHERWISE TO PERFORM AN APPROPRIATE EGREGIOUS HARM ANALYSIS.

4. THE MAJORITY IGNORED THIS COURT'S PRECEDENT TO THE EXTENT IT JUSTIFIED ITS OPINION ON ARGUMENTS THAT HAD BEEN WAIVED BY THE STATE.

2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN HOLDING THAT MARYLAND V. DYSON, 527 U.S. 465 (1999) AUTHORIZES THE WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO THE AUTOMOBILE PARKED ON APPELLANT’S PROPERTY

3. Is Ambiguity or Confusion about the Particular Offense That Has Been Charged the Type of Objection to an Indictment That must Be Raised by a Defendant Prior to the Date of Trial?

2. Did the Court of Appeals Err by Finding That the Trial Court Abused its Discretion by Admitting the Testimony of a Cps Investigator and the Investigating Police Officer under Evidence Rule 801(e)(1)(B) When the Court of Appeals Itself Acknowledged That the Testimony of the Child Victim Was Internally Conflicting?

2. The Court of Appeals Decision Has Sanctioned the Trial Courts Departure from the Accepted and Usual Course of Judicial Proceedings in That it Held That a Trial Court May Take Judicial Notice of a Bail Bond on its Motion Without Comment, Thus Eliminating the Need to Offer the Bail Bond into Evidence. This Holding Calls for an Exercise of the Court of Criminal Appeals' Power of Supervision.

2. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION?

2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TEXAS STATUTE DEFINING MURDER, CAPITAL MURDER AS THEY INCORPORATE THE CURRENT EXPANDED DEFINITION OF A INDIVIDUAL IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

3. Does Evidence That Affirmatively Links a Defendant to Contraband "Tend to Connect" Him to the Commission of the Offense under Tex. Code Crim. Proc Ann. Art. 38.141?

2. IS ERROR IN THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING DURING VOIR DIRE THAT IT WILL NOT ADMIT DIMINISHED CAPACITY EVIDENCE AT GUILT-INNOCENCE AUTOMATICALLY HARMFUL WHEN THE APPELLANT CHANGES HIS PLEA TO GUILTY AS A RESULT OF THE RULING?

2. Did the Court of Appeals Err by Not Giving Proper Deference to the Trial Court's Finding That Defense Counsel's Failure to Exercise a Peremptory Challenge Against an Assistant District Attorney Was Due to Sound Trial Strategy?

2. If a Trial Court Pronounces a Legal Alternative Ruling on the Cumulation of Sentences, Should a Court of Appeals Reform the Judgment Contrary to That Ruling? In Other Words, Should ex Parte Sadler, 283 S.w.2d 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955), Be Overruled to Strike the Erroneous Cumulation Order and Run the Sentences Concurrently?

2. Does a Jury Instruction That Tracks the Language of Penal Code Section 6.04 Always Improperly Expand on the Allegations in a Charging Instrument?

(State’s) Did the Court of Appeals Apply the Correct Analysis to Determine That the Statement of a Four Year-old Chid Was Testimonial under Crawford v. Washington?

5. This Court Needs to Decide Make a Practical Review of the Question of What Amount of Evidence Is Required to Invoke the Mandatory Provisions of Article 42.08(b).

2. The Court of Appeals Erred by Refusing to Recognize That the Trial Court Had Permitted Hybrid Representation by Ruling on the Motion for New Trial, Thus Subjecting it to Appellate Review on the Merits.

3. WHERE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY OVERRULES A PRETRIAL MOTION THAT DENIES APPELLANT HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND APPELLANT SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERS A GUILTY PLEA TO DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY APPLYING THE HARMLESS-ERROR TEST OF TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(A)?

Ed. Note: See also companion PDRs granted in David Woodall, Gabriel Williams, Gabriel Contreras, April Harlow, Terry Holmes, Michael Brice, and Walter Widener, Jr.

4. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CAN AN ERRONEOUSLY SUBMITTED ALTERNATE THEORY BE HARMFUL WHEN THE REVIEWING COURT FINDS THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION UNDER ANOTHER SUBMITTED THEORY?

2. Did the Court of Appeals Err by Concluding That Circumstances That Would Constitute a "Temporary Detention" under Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Jurisprudence must Be Considered to Be an "Arrest" Because of the Provisions of Vernon's Ann. C.C.P. Art. 15.22?

3. The Court of Appeals Erred by Confusing a Written Order Constituting Appealable Error with the Documentation Necessary to Reflect the Threshold Requirement of Presentment of a Motion for New Trial.

4. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO CITE IN HIS BRIEF THE PROPER LOCATION IN THE RECORD WHERE HE RAISED THE ISSUE OF LIMITATIONS BEFORE THE JURY, WHERE THE APPELLANT DID IN HIS BRIEF CITE THE COURT OF APPEALS TO THE PROPER LOCATION IN THE RECORD WHERE THE ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE JURY, WHERE THE COURT OF APPEALS COULD NOT ON ITS OWN FIND WHERE THE APPELLANT HAD RAISED THE ISSUE BEFORE THE JURY, AND WHERE IN FACT THE APPELLANT DID AT TRIAL, AND CLEARLY ON THE RECORD, RAISE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE JURY

4. SHOULD THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE OF INTENT TIP THE FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY BALANCING SCALE IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT WHERE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND REASONABLE INFERENCES FROM THAT EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE GUILTY VERDICT?

2. THE COURT BELOW ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED THE TRIAL COURT COULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY FOUND THAT (A) APPELLANT WAS ARRESTED FOR MAKING AN ILLEGAL TURN AND IMPROPER SIGNALING AND (B) APPELLANT'S PROLONGED DETENTION WAS THEREFORE LAWFUL AS PART OF A SEARCH INCIDENT TO APPELLANT'S ARREST UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND ACCORDINGLY ERRONEOUSLY DISREGARDED THE TRIAL COURT'S CASE-DISPOSITIVE IMPLIED FINDING TO THAT EFFECT WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND IN ITSELF AUTHORIZED THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE.

3. Did Appeals Court Reversibly Find Trial Court's Order Was Unappealable under TCrPC art. 11.072 (CR148-150: 1/20 order at finding 7)

3. WHEN A RECORDED TELEPHONE CONVERSATION IS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, DOES THE RULE OF OPTIONAL COMPLETENESS REQUIRE THE ADMISSION OF ANY OTHER RECORDED TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES?

2. The Third Court of Appeals Failed to Address the Main Assertions That Supported Appellant’s Claim That the Error in His Case Was Egregious.

4. AREVALO V. STATE SHOULD BE OVERRULED.

2. WHERE THE FINDING THAT MR. WHITEHEAD DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR HIS FAILURE TO APPEAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF HIS RELEASE IS FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION.

3. WHERE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY OVERRULES A PRETRIAL MOTION THAT DENIES APPELLANT HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND APPELLANT SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERS A GUILTY PLEA TO DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY APPLYING THE HARMLESS-ERROR TEST OF TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(A)?

Ed. Note: See also companion PDRs granted in David Woodall, Gabriel Williams, Gabriel Contreras, April Harlow, Alfonso R. Rodriguez, Michael Brice, and Terry Holmes

2. THE NINTH COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT APPELLANT DESTROYED EVIDENCE, SPECIFICALLY A CRACK PIPE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAW.

3. WHERE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY OVERRULES A PRETRIAL MOTION THAT DENIES APPELLANT HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND APPELLANT SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERS A GUILTY PLEA TO DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY APPLYING THE HARMLESS-ERROR TEST OF TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(A)?

Ed. Note: See also companion PDRs granted in David Woodall, Terry Holmes, Gabriel Contreras, April Harlow, Alfonso R. Rodriguez, Michael Brice, and Walter Widener, Jr.

3. WHERE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY OVERRULES A PRETRIAL MOTION THAT DENIES APPELLANT HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND APPELLANT SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERS A GUILTY PLEA TO DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS ERR BY APPLYING THE HARMLESS-ERROR TEST OF TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(A)?

Ed. Note: See also companion PDRs granted in Terry Holmes, Gabriel Williams, Gabriel Contreras, April Harlow, Alfonso R. Rodriguez, Michael Brice, and Walter Widener, Jr.

2. FEDERAL DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED WHEN APPELLANT’S CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BASED UPON FACTS NOT SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.

Does the Court's Opinion Incorrectly State the Majority Opinion in Holding That the Search Exceeded the Scope of the Warrant When Two of Three Justices Wrote That the Warrant Authorized a Search of the Residence?

2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN FAILING TO GRANT A MISTRIAL WHEN THE DISTINCTION OF PRIOR COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DECISIONS CLAIMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO OTHER COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DECISIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE SAME AND OTHER COURTS OF APPEALS.