Summary
remanding case to this court because we "did not have the benefit of [the court of criminal appeals's] opinion in Arteaga " and stating that it held in Arteaga that under section 22.011(f), "the [l]egislature ‘intended for the State to prove facts constituting bigamy’ "
Summary of this case from Senn v. StateOpinion
NO. PD-0145-17
11-22-2017
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. MICHAEL RAY SENN, Appellant
ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS TARRANT COUNTY
Per curiam. OPINION
Appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the enhancement pursuant to Penal Code § 22.011(f) because that statute required proof of bigamous conduct under Penal Code § 25.01 and the evidence failed to show such. He also argued that his jury charge was erroneous for failing to require proof of bigamy. The Court of Appeals rejected both claims. Senn v. State, No. 02-15-00201-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 278 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth January 12, 2017) (not designated for publication).
Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision. We recently handed down our opinion in Arteaga v. State, 521 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017), in which we held that under§ 22.011(f), the Legislature "intended for the State to prove facts constituting bigamy." We also held that the jury charge in that case was erroneous because it neglected to include the definition of bigamy from § 25.01.
The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in Arteaga. Accordingly, we grant Appellant's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals in light of our opinion in Arteaga. DATE DELIVERED: November 22, 2017 DO NOT PUBLISH