From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Jul 1, 1998
970 S.W.2d 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that proper remedy when evidence is legally insufficient to support deadly weapon finding is to delete finding and affirm the judgment as reformed

Summary of this case from Voltmann v. State
See 8 Summaries

Opinion

No. 1198-97

July 1, 1998

Appeal from the 371st District Court, Tarrant County, James R. Wilson, J.,

Robert Ford, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Anne S. Swenson, Assistant District Attorney, Fort Worth, Matthew Paul, State's Attorney, Austin, for State.

Before the court en banc.

OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

McCormick, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

A jury convicted appellant of the felony offense of driving while intoxicated and sentenced him to fifteen years' confinement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but ordered a new trial on punishment holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. Williams v. State, 946 S.W.2d 432 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996). We granted discretionary review on grounds related to the Court of Appeals' decision on the deadly weapon issue (grounds one through five) and the remedy it provided (grounds six and seven).

We have decided our decision to grant discretionary review on grounds one through five and ground seven was improvident. In ground six, the State argues the Court of Appeals erred by ordering a new trial on punishment instead of deleting the deadly weapon finding. We agree. The proper remedy is to delete the deadly weapon finding. See, e.g., Narron v. State, 835 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992). Therefore, the deadly weapon finding in the trial court's judgment is ordered deleted.

We sustain ground six of the State's petition, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and affirm the judgment of the trial court as reformed. Grounds one through five and ground seven of the State's petition for discretionary review are dismissed as improvidently granted.

Summaries of

Williams v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Jul 1, 1998
970 S.W.2d 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)

holding that proper remedy when evidence is legally insufficient to support deadly weapon finding is to delete finding and affirm the judgment as reformed

Summary of this case from Voltmann v. State

concluding that evidence was insufficient to support deadly-weapon finding because no other vehicles were on the highway "at the time and place that Williams drove in an intoxicated condition" and trooper who followed defendant's vehicle "took precautions for his own safety, as he was trained to do, and was not actually endangered"

Summary of this case from Balkissoon v. State

concluding that proper remedy when appellate court sustains challenge to sufficiency of evidence to support deadly weapon finding is ordering deletion of deadly weapon finding rather than ordering new trial on punishment

Summary of this case from Drichas v. State

reversing the jury's deadly weapon finding and concluding that to find a vehicle capable of causing death or serious bodily injury the evidence must show that there was someone present who was placed in danger of serious bodily injury or death when the DWI offense occurred

Summary of this case from Brister v. State

reversing the jury's deadly weapon finding and concluding that to find a vehicle capable of causing death or serious bodily injury the evidence must show that there was someone present who was placed in danger of serious bodily injury or death when the DWI offense occurred

Summary of this case from Brister v. State

deleting deadly-weapon finding when there was insufficient evidence showing that defendant used or exhibited deadly weapon during offense

Summary of this case from Guzman v. State

reforming judgment proper remedy for correcting erroneous deadly weapon finding

Summary of this case from Robinson v. State

In Williams, the court held that a deadly weapon finding was not permissible absent evidence that another motorist was on the highway at the time and place the defendant drove in an intoxicated condition.

Summary of this case from Mann v. State
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL THOMAS WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: Jul 1, 1998

Citations

970 S.W.2d 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Smith v. State

(evidence sufficient to support the deadly-weapon finding in appellant's DWI conviction, where police officer…

Pruett v. State

There was no one else in the home at the time, and there is no evidence in this record that these…

39 Citing Cases