STANTON v. STATE (2026)

OPINION

Appellant was convicted of three counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment on each count. The third count alleged that he touched the complainant's breast. At trial, after the State rested, Appellant requested that the State elect which act it intended to rely upon for the breast-touching count in the indictment. Appellant renewed this request after he rested, and again during the jury charge conference.

On appeal, the court of appeals characterized and rejected Appellant's point of error in the following manner:

[Appellant's] sole complaint on appeal is about the timing of the State's election. However, he did not object at trial to the timing of the election. Rather, he acquiesced in the trial court's decision to permit the State to make its election at the close of all of the evidence. Accordingly, his argument on appeal is not preserved. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Bonilla v. State, 452 S.W.3d 811, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“The party who complains about the trial judge's action on direct appeal bears the burden of objecting at trial․”); Dunn v. State, 819 S.W.2d 510, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (defendant failed to preserve issue for review when he acquiesced to the trial court's action contrary to his complaint).

Stanton v. State, No. 10-25-00001-CR, 2026 WL 1346512, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco May 14, 2026) (emphasis added). But this was not Appellant's “sole” complaint on appeal. In fact, Appellant's first issue on appeal was styled, “The trial court erred in failing to grant Appellant an election of offenses after the State had rested.” See id., Appellant's Br. at xviii, 7. “The statement of an issue or point will be treated as covering every subsidiary question that is fairly included.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f).

“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.” Id. R. 47.1. We agree with Appellant that the court of appeals did not address every issue raised in Appellant's appeal. We grant Appellant's first ground for review, vacate the judgment of the court appeals, and remand the cause for the court of appeals to address all of Appellant's points of error as presented in his appellate briefing.

Per curiam.