Is there a way to research what issue was actually presented to the CCA on PDR. I have several cases that support my argument with PDR refused. CCA has not weighed in on the issue, but if that specific issue was presented to CCA and they refused it, would like to argue that is some indication of the stand the CCA would take on the issue.

The State Prosecuting Attorney's site has a list of current issues pending before the CCA. If not in opinions, I don't know where you can find issues already ruled on.

JAS

Well, the PDR is a public record. You could get a copy from the court of appeals to see what was raised. As far as I know, those are not in Westlaw or Lexis.

The CCA posts all of the granted issues on
their website. Just click on the issues button.

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/issues/ISSUES.htm

BTW, pitching your PDR as presenting a similar issue to an already granted and pending PDR is an excellent way to up your chances of getting a pet granted.

It also gives you a chance to read some of the greatest run-on sentences anywhere.

For an explanation, click here.

[This message was edited by JB on 04-02-08 at .]

Thanks - guess no easy way of getting what issues were refused by CCA. Have not found a split among CoA's on the issue (most are unpublished). The opinion most cited for the principle (refuse to extend factual sufficiency review to non-capital punishment evidence) is out of the 11th CoA, Bradfield 42 SW3d 350. Don't anticipate any problem with it - since request is for the 11th CoA to revisit the issue. I don't think they will change from their own precedent. Just thought argument would be stronger if I could point out that the CCA has refused this exact issue before.

It shouldn't make the argument stronger:

"we take this opportunity to emphasize that the summary refusal of a petition for discretionary review by this Court is of no precedential value." Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. Crim. App.1983).

Thanks - I never researched that point. Just hoping that it was similar to TRAP 56.1(c) - indicating it has same precential value as opinion from Texas Supreme Court. I guess the Court of Criminal Appeals refusal does not carry the same weight.