BRIAN DALE NIXON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2026)

DISSENTING OPINION

This is the second time Appellant Brian Dale Nixon's case is before us. The first time, the court of appeals had held that Appellant's presumption of innocence was undermined when his jury trial was held in the Medina County Jail instead of the Medina County Courthouse. Nixon v. State, 674 S.W.3d 384, 396 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023), reversed by 707 S.W.3d 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024). Over my dissent, this Court reversed, concluding that there was no constitutional error because the courtroom was a separate facility from the jail, even though the courtroom was, in fact, a room in the clearly marked and clearly identified jail building. Nixon v. State, 707 S.W.3d 279, 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024) (“we are convinced that jurors would likely have concluded that, while the courtroom was located in a building labeled on the outside with the name ‘Medina County Jail[,]’ the courtroom itself was a separate government facility distinct from the jail.”); id. at 292–93 (Walker, J., dissenting) (pointing out that the building is a single building clearly labeled “JAIL”). This Court remanded to the court of appeals below to consider Appellant's other issues. Id. at 292 (majority opinion).

In one of those issues, Appellant argued to the court of appeals that, because § 24.012(e) of the Government Code provides that nonjury matters may be heard in a correctional facility and therefore jury matters should not be held in a correctional facility,¹ his jury trial in the courtroom in the Medina County Jail violated the statute. Nixon v. State, No. 04-21-00295-CR, 2025 WL 2690353, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 17, 2025, pet. filed) (mem. op., not designated for publication). But taking inspiration from this Court's previous opinion, the court of appeals concluded that the jury trial in the courtroom in the jail building was not a trial at a correctional facility. Id. at *2 (discussing Nixon, 707 S.W.3d at 288).

Despite its own acknowledgment that “[t]here is no doubt that a jail is a correctional facility under subsection 24.012(e)[,]” the court of appeals clearly felt constrained by this Court's previous opinion:

Before the Court of Criminal Appeals issued Nixon I, we may have very well concluded the auxiliary courtroom in this case falls within the definition of “correctional facility” under section 1.07 of the penal code, and thus section 24.012(e) of the government code, because it is housed within the same building as the county jail and the building is labeled as the “MEDINA COUNTY JAIL.” However, we cannot ignore the Court of Criminal Appeals’ clear statement in Nixon I that the “jail” is a “distinct facilit[y]” from the “auxiliary courtroom.” Therefore, we must conclude that Nixon was not tried in a correctional facility and subsection 24.012(e) does not apply to this case.

Id. (internal citations omitted).

This Court should grant Appellant's petition for discretionary review because that conclusion flies in the face of common sense. As the court of appeals itself recognized, a jail is a correctional facility. Id.; Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(14)(A). And the courtroom where Appellant's jury trial was held was in a building named MEDINA COUNTY JAIL. Nixon, 707 S.W.3d at 292–93 (Walker, J., dissenting). This Court should grant Appellant's petition to clarify that a courtroom in a jail building is a courtroom in a correctional facility under Government Code § 24.012(e).

Of course, the court of appeals did not get to its conclusion on its own. It was compelled to reach it because of this Court's previous opinion. See Nixon, 2025 WL 2690353, at *2. We should grant Appellant's petition to correct this Court's prior mistake. A courtroom in a jail building is not a separate facility from the jail. It is in the jail building. It is part of the jail. A trial in a jail undermines a defendant's presumption of innocence because it suggests to the jury that the defendant is not innocent but instead someone who must be kept at the jail and cannot be in the regular courthouse. See Nixon, 707 S.W.3d at 297 (Walker, J., dissenting) (agreeing with and quoting Nixon, 674 S.W.3d at 396 (the trial in the jail “created an unacceptable risk that the jury would conclude, before hearing any evidence, that Nixon is too dangerous to transport and must be isolated from society.”)).

Jury trials need to be held in the courthouse, not in the jail house. Because this Court refuses the petition, I respectfully dissent.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Section 24.012(e) provides:(e) A district judge may hear a nonjury matter relating to a civil or criminal case at a correctional facility in the county in which the case is filed or prosecuted if a party to the case or the criminal defendant is confined in the correctional facility. For purposes of this subsection, “correctional facility” has the meaning assigned by Section 1.07, Penal Code.Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.012(e). Section 1.07 of the Penal Code provides:(14) “Correctional facility” means a place designated by law for the confinement of a person arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a criminal offense. The term includes:(A) a municipal or county jail[.]Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(14)(A).

Walker, J., filed a dissenting opinion.