East Texas Appeals Lawyer & Attorney : Jeff Rambin Law Firm : Civil and Criminal Appeals : 12th Court of Appeals, Tyler, Texas

Thomas v. Bobby D. Associates (Published Memo): $49,000 in fees for a $7,000 recovery is excessive.  The Tyler court orders a $24,000 remittitur.

This is a collections case.  Thomas agreed to buy six tracts of land in Van Zandt County.  He made the payments for a while, but couldn't keep them up.  Bobby D repossessed the tracts but still sued for the full amount on the notes, plus interest.  In total, Bobby D sought about $80,000 in damages.  The jury only awarded $7,000.  That's because the trial court didn't go for the Bobby D's double-dipping.  The trial court instructed the jury to base their award on the amount due on the notes less the current fair market value of the repossessed tracts.

In light of the award, the Tyler court couldn't stomach the big fee award.  Bobby D had asked for too much, had let the case linger on the docket for seven years, and had multiple attorneys get up to speed on the case only to hand it off to someone else.  The Tyler court makes Bobby D an offer: agree to a $24,000 reduction in the fee award, or have the fees wiped out and sent back to the trial court for a do-over.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Killgo v. State (Unpublished Memo): Killgo failed to defeat all of the probation revocation findings made by the trial court. so the Tyler court affirms.  Killgo's ten year probation for aggravated sexual assault of a child was revoked and turned into a fifty year prison term. 

Killgo says that six of the eight terms-of-probation violations the trial court found dealt with a failure to pay money (a fine associated with his sentence, and other undisclosed financial obligations that were made conditions of his community supervision).  He says that the trial court's conclusion that he was "able" to pay is not supported by the evidence.  He says the evidence shows he was broke.  The Tyler court says: "What about the other two violations?"  Or, more precisely:

In cases where the trial court revokes probation based upon findings that a defendant violated more than one condition of probation, such a revocation does not constitute an abuse of discretion where any single finding of a violation is held to be valid.

Killgo hadn't submitted to a required polygraph examination (the subject(s) of that examination are not stated).  In addition Killgo hadn't showed up for community service duty.  So the Tyler court affirms the revocation of probation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gibbs v. State (Unpublished Memo): Silence and "no objection" are different things. 

Gibbs filed a motion to suppress some drug-related evidence prior to trial.  Having obtained a ruling on the motion to suppress, error was preserved -- there was no need to object to the evidence again at trial.

At trial, the State offered a slate of exhibits, including the evidence addressed by the motion to suppress.

Counsel for Gibbs said: "No objection."

And with that, counsel waived the issue.  All of the work on the motion to suppress was for nothing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks