NYC 999, LLC and Amalgamated Gadget, L.P. v. John D. Phillips, Bryan D. Yokley, W. Todd Chmar, Walter J. Burmeister, Kirby J. Campbell, Bryan Cipoletti, Steven J. Clearman, John P. Imlay, Jr., Massimo

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 2nd District Court of Appeals » 2006 » NYC 999, LLC and Amalgamated Gadget, L.P. v. John D. Phillips, Bryan D. Yokley, W. Todd Chmar, Walter J. Burmeister, Kirby J. Campbell, Bryan Cipoletti, Steven J. Clearman, John P. Imlay, Jr., Massimo

State: Texas

Court: Criminal Court of Appeals

Docket No: 02-06-00295-CV

Case Date: 11/16/2006

Plaintiff: GERALD SANSING

Defendant: CARLOS GARCIA--Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County

Preview:In re Jeremy M. Wyckoff--Appeal from 73rd Judicial District Court of Bexar County
MAJORITY | MAJORITY DISSENTING OPINION

No. 04-04-00634-CV

IN RE Jeremy M. WYCKOFF

Original Mandamus Proceeding //

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice Dissenting opinion by: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice Catherine Stone, Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 13, 2005 Each litigant has a fundamental right to be heard under the due process clause of the United States and Texas Constitutions. Young v. Martinez, 685 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1984, no writ.). The right to be heard assures a full hearing before a court having jurisdiction of the matter, the right to introduce evidence at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, and to have judicial findings based upon that evidence. Id. A trial court is not authorized to render judgment against a defendant before the defendant has had the opportunity to offer evidence in his or her behalf and has rested. Jordan v. Jordan, 653 S.W.2d 356, 358 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1983, no writ). In this case, the trial court interrupted Wyckoff s presentation of evidence. The trial court wanted to cut to the chase because the trial court already had determined that S.V.M would not be left in his parents unsupervised custody; therefore, the only alternative the trial court intended to consider was the placement of S.V.M. in the custody of his maternal grandmother. The trial court made this determination, however, before Wyckoff was given the opportunity to present evidence that the maternal grandmother worked a 3 p.m. to midnight shift, and her only choice was to leave S.V.M. in Vogel s unsupervised custody. Thus, S.V.M. would be left in the unsupervised custody of the same person that Beams testified was on a mood stabilizer with a clinical depression diagnosis. More critically, S.V.M. would be left in the unsupervised custody of the same person who had expressed thoughts of hurting S.V.M. Particularly in view of the recent crisis involving child abuse, I believe the trial court abused its discretion in truncating Wyckoff s due process rights in an effort to cut to the chase, thereby precluding the court s full consideration of this critical testimony. Because the majority finds no abuse of discretion, I respectfully dissent. Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/18112.html[8/20/2013 7:46:01 PM]

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/18112.html[8/20/2013 7:46:01 PM]

Download 18112.pdf