HECTOR RENE GALVEZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (original)
Annotate this Case
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. PD-0544-08
HECTOR RENE GALVEZ, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
McLENNAN COUNTY
Per curiam.
O P I N I O N
A jury found Appellant guilty of two counts of aggravated sexual assault and the trial court assessed punishment at life imprisonment. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding that extraneous offense evidence was inadmissible because Appellant raised a defense of fabrication, but not a claim of "frame-up" or retaliation. Galvez v. State, No. 10-03-00083-CR (Tex. App. -- Waco 2008). In doing so, the Court of Appeals relied on Newton v. State, No. 10-06-00160-CR (Tex. App. -- Waco 2007) (unpub.), which in turn, relied on Bass v. State, 222 S.W.3d 571, 576-77 (Houston--14th 2007).
The State has filed a petition for discretionary review contending the Court of Appeals erred in finding evidence of Appellant's extraneous offenses inadmissible to rebut the defensive theory of fabrication, arguing that the focus should not be on the title of the theory but on the facts justifying admission.
This Court granted discretionary review in Bass, in order to address this issue. We concluded that extraneous offense evidence is admissible to rebut a fabrication defense, and that no categorical distinctions exist between such defenses and "frame-up" or "retaliation" defenses. Bass v. State, S.W.3d (Tex. Crim. App. Nos. PD-0494-07, 0495-07, delivered September 10, 2008), slip op. at 16-17. The Appellant's motion for rehearing was denied on November 26, 2008. The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in Bass. Accordingly, we grant the State's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of our opinion in Bass.
Delivered: December 17, 2008
Do Not Publish
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
