<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Judge Newell on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/judge-newell/</link><description>Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/judge-newell/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Court of Criminal Appeals, on Rehearing, Withdraws 2024 Opinion and Holds Ethics Commission Referral Is Not a Precondition to Election-Law Prosecution</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/ex-parte-charette-rehearing/</link><pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/ex-parte-charette-rehearing/</guid><description>On the State’s motion for rehearing, the court withdrew its September 2024 opinion and affirmed the denial of pretrial habeas relief to a former judicial candidate. It held that neither the Texas Constitution nor Government Code Chapter 571 categorically bars a criminal prosecution for election-law offenses brought without a referral from the Texas Ethics Commission or exhaustion of its civil process, while reaffirming that the habeas claim was cognizable.</description></item><item><title>Court of Criminal Appeals Vacates Travis County Restraining Order That Had Blocked Robert Roberson’s Execution</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-tdcj-ex-rel-paxton-roberson-subpoena/</link><pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-tdcj-ex-rel-paxton-roberson-subpoena/</guid><description>In a per curiam opinion, the court held that a district court’s temporary restraining order enjoining the Texas Department of Criminal Justice from carrying out a death warrant had the effect of staying a scheduled execution and was subject to the court’s mandamus authority. The court vacated the order itself. Four judges dissented.</description></item></channel></rss>