From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wirth v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Dec 15, 2010
327 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)

Summary

confirming that Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), was overruled by Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.Crim.App.2010)

Summary of this case from Ridings v. State

Opinion

No. PD-1716-09.

December 15, 2010.

On the State's Petition for Discretionary Review from the Sixth Court of Appeals Fannin County, Laurine Blake, Judge.

Jason Butscher, Sherman, for Appellant.

John B. Setterberg, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Bonham, Lisa C. McMinn, State's Atty., Austin, for State.


OPINION


Appellant was indicted for the offense of theft of property over $200,000 pursuant to one scheme and continuing course of conduct. TEX. PENAL CODE § 31.03(a). A jury convicted appellant of the lesser offense of theft of $20,000 or more but less than $100,000, assessed a punishment of ten years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine, and recommended community supervision. Wirth v. State, 296 S.W.3d 895, 897 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2009). The trial court sentenced appellant to ten years' incarceration, probated for five years, fined him $10,000, and ordered him to pay restitution of $128,103.27.

In the court of appeals, appellant argued that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the verdict because the evidence could not support a finding of intent to commit theft. The court of appeals held that the evidence was factually insufficient to support the verdict, pursuant to Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Wirth v. State, 296 S.W.3d 895 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2009).

At the time that the court of appeals considered this case, this Court had not issued its opinion in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010), in which we overruled Clewis. We therefore vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to that court for reconsideration pursuant to Brooks.

MEYERS, J., dissented.


Summaries of

Wirth v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Dec 15, 2010
327 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)

confirming that Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), was overruled by Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.Crim.App.2010)

Summary of this case from Ridings v. State

confirming that Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), was overruled by Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)

Summary of this case from Ridings v. State

remanding a case that the court of appeals reversed for factual insufficiency before the court of criminal appeals handed down Brooks and ordering that court to reconsider its decision in light of Brooks

Summary of this case from Sorrells v. State

remanding a case that the court of appeals had reversed for factual insufficiency and ordering that court to reconsider its decision in light of Brooks

Summary of this case from Bragdon v. State

stating that Brooks overruled Clewis, vacating court of appeals opinion finding evidence factually insufficient, and remanding for reconsideration pursuant to Brooks

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

Wirth v. State

Case Details

Full title:Raymond Waier WIRTH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Dec 15, 2010

Citations

327 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Wirth v. State

00, the evidence was factually in-sufficient to support the conviction. Wirth v. State, 296 S.W.3d 895…

Wirth v. State

323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Cr.App.2010). 10. Wirth v. State, 327 S.W.3d 164 (Tex.Cr.App.2010). 11. Wirth v. State,…