Craig Estlinbaum

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Local Politics Image.jpg

Ballotpedia provides comprehensive election coverage of the 100 largest cities in America by population as well as mayoral, city council, and district attorney election coverage in state capitals outside of the 100 largest cities. This judge is outside of that coverage scope and does not receive scheduled updates.


BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Ballotpedia does not currently cover this office or maintain this page. Please contact us with any updates.
Craig Estlinbaum

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png

Do you have a photo that could go here? Click here to submit it for this profile!


Texas 130th District Court
Tenure
Present officeholder
Elections and appointments
Last elected

November 8, 2016

Education

Bachelor's

Texas A&M University

Graduate

Texas A&M University

Law

South Texas College of Law, 1994

Contact


Craig Estlinbaum is the presiding judge of the 130th District Court in Texas.[1] He was first elected to the bench in November 2000.[2] Estlinbaum won re-election in the general election on November 8, 2016.

Biography

Estlinbaum earned B.A. and M.Agr. degrees from Texas A&M University. He received his J.D. from the South Texas College of Law in 1994.[3][4][5] Estlinbaum was admitted to the bar in June 1994. He was elected to the district court in 2000. Since 2004, he has taught damages at South Texas College of Law.[4]

Elections

2016

See also: Texas local trial court judicial elections, 2016

Texas held general elections for local judicial offices on November 8, 2016. A primary election took place on March 1, 2016. A primary runoff election was held on May 24, 2016, for any seat where the top vote recipient did not receive a majority of the primary vote.[6] Incumbent Craig Estlinbaum ran unopposed in the Texas 130th District Court Democratic primary.[7]

Texas 130th District Court, Democratic Primary, 2016
Candidate
Green check mark transparent.png Craig Estlinbaum Incumbent

Incumbent Craig Estlinbaum defeated Ken Leatherman in the Texas 130th District Court general election.

Texas 130th District Court, General Election, 2016
Party Candidate Vote % Votes
     Democratic Green check mark transparent.png Craig Estlinbaum Incumbent 50.21% 6,032
     Republican Ken Leatherman 49.79% 5,982
Total Votes 12,014
Source: Matagorda County, Texas, "Cumulative Report - Unofficial," November 15, 2016

Selection method

See also: Partisan election of judges

The judges of the Texas District Courts are chosen in partisan elections. They serve four-year terms, after which they must run for re-election if they wish to continue serving.[8]

Though Texas is home to more than 400 district courts, the courts are grouped into nine administrative judicial regions. Each region is overseen by a presiding judge who is appointed by the governor to a four-year term. According to the state courts website, the presiding judge may be a "regular elected or retired district judge, a former judge with at least 12 years of service as a district judge, or a retired appellate judge with judicial experience on a district court."[9]

Qualifications
To serve on the district courts, a judge must be:

  • a U.S. citizen;
  • a resident of Texas;
  • licensed to practice law in the state;
  • between the ages of 25 and 75;*[10]
  • a practicing lawyer and/or state judge for at least four years; and
  • a resident of his or her respective judicial district for at least two years.[8]

*While no judge older than 74 may run for office, sitting judges who turn 75 are permitted to continue serving until their term expires.[8]

2012

Estlinbaum was re-elected without opposition to the 130th District Court.[11]

See also: Texas judicial elections, 2012

Notable cases

Imprisoned man without conviction missed his chance, judge rules

Judge Estinbaum, in April of 2014, denied a motion by Jerry Hartfield's attorney, Jeffrey Newberry, to have his client released on the grounds that he could no longer receive a fair trial because his case had been lost in the court system for over 30 years.

Jerry Hartfield was convicted of a 1976 murder and sentenced to death in 1977. However, he was granted a new trial by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 1980 and the sentence was overturned. Hartfield, maintaining his innocence, remained incarcerated for years. In 1983, then-Governor Mark White commuted his sentence from death to life in prison, though the fact that his conviction had been overturned meant, according to Newberry, that there was no sentence to commute. It wasn't until 2006 that Hartfield, who is reported to be intellectually disabled based on a 1977 evaluation, was told by a fellow inmate that he should have received a new trial. He was appointed an attorney after he filed a writ of habeas corpus, but the case remained unresolved for eight years.

Newberry, a lawyer with the Texas Innocence Network at the University of Houston, attempted to get Hartfield released in 2014, arguing that his right to a fair trial was made impossible by the passage of time. The murder weapon had gone missing and some of the witnesses had died. Prosecutors continued to push for a new trial, arguing that the state had not acted in bad faith by failing to retry Hartfield, but that they were simply unaware that the case was still pending. They also argued that Hartfield had not shown that he even wanted a new trial for most of his time in prison.

Judge Estinbaum ruled that Hartfield shouldn't have waited until 2006 to complain about the errors. He rejected the motion to dismiss Hartfield's charges on those grounds, explaining:

The responsibility placed upon the defendant or his counsel to assert the right is not a burdensome one - a motion for speedy trial or motion for trial setting need do little more than demand that a trial should be set and conducted.[12]
—Judge Craig Estlinbaum[13]
The judge did find that the state had been negligent because they failed to retry Hartfield. He also found that the inmate's ability to defend himself properly had diminished with time. However, he also found there was no submitted evidence of Hartfield's mental issues and ultimately ruled against the man's release.[14][15]

See also

External links

Footnotes