Texas v. Hatter (original by judge walker)
Annotate this CaseAppellee Sanitha Hatter was charged with felony assault against a peace officer, and two misdemeanor cases of driving while intoxicated (DWI). The felony prosecutor and defense counsel on the assault case reached an agreement in which the prosecutor promised to dismiss the assault case in exchange for Appellee’s promise to plead guilty to the DWI cases. The prosecutor later assured Appellee’s counsel that, no matter what happened to the DWI cases, he would dismiss the assault case and not re-file it. The assault case was dismissed, but shortly thereafter the DWI cases were also dismissed instead of Appellee entering guilty pleas. The felony prosecutor re-filed the assault case. Appellee moved for specific performance, asking the trial court to order the State to move to dismiss the assault case in accordance to the earlier promise not to re-file. The trial court granted the motion, and the re-filed assault case was dismissed. The court of appeals affirmed, finding that the State and Appellee had entered into an enforceable immunity agreement. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found the agreement between Appellee and the State was in the nature of a plea bargain agreement—not an immunity agreement—the court of appeals applied an inapplicable test for determining whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for specific performance. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, and remanded this matter to the court of appeals to determine whether the trial court’s order could be sustained by a theory of law applicable to the case.
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.