From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cooper v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Nov 16, 2010
No. 06-10-00084-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 16, 2010)

Opinion

No. 06-10-00084-CR

Date Submitted: October 20, 2010.

Date Decided: November 16, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH.

On Appeal from the 102nd Judicial District Court, Red River County, Texas, Trial Court No. CR01520.

Before MORRISS, C.J., CARTER and MOSELEY, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


William Allen Cooper appeals from his conviction by a jury for improper photography or visual recording. He was sentenced to two years in state jail and a $10,000.00 fine. Cooper was tried on two counts in a single proceeding and is facing two convictions, resulting in two separate appeals. A common brief was filed raising the same issues in both cases. Cooper raises several issues, including a Batson claim, issues about the unsupported assessment of costs, issues concerning harm caused by improperly admitted evidence and an improper opening statement by the State, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Because the evidentiary contention disposes of the appeal, we need not address the remaining issues. We addressed the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction in detail in our opinion of this date on Cooper's appeal in cause number 06-10-00083-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support this conviction. We reverse the conviction and render a judgment of acquittal.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).


Summaries of

Cooper v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Nov 16, 2010
No. 06-10-00084-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 16, 2010)
Case details for

Cooper v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM ALLEN COOPER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

Date published: Nov 16, 2010

Citations

No. 06-10-00084-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 16, 2010)

Citing Cases

Cooper v. State

Appellant was convicted in two causes of improper photography or visual recording. On appeal, the court of…