Summary
In State v. McKnight, 213 S.W.3d 915, 916 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (per curiam), the Court of Criminal Appeals required courts of appeal to review a trial court's order granting a new trial for charge error under the harm standards of Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
Summary of this case from State v. AmbroseOpinion
No. PD-1854-06.
January 31, 2007.
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Philip Meyer, Judge.
Petition for Discretionary review from the Court of Appeals Fourth Supreme Judicial District.
Jimmy Parks, Jr., San Antonio, for appellant.
Enrico B. Valdez, Asst. Crim. D.A., San Antonio, Matthew Paul, State's Attorney, Austin, for state.
OPINION
A jury found Appellee guilty of disorderly conduct. The trial court then granted Appellee's motion for new trial, and the State appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed based on its conclusion that the harm standard set forth in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984), does not apply to jury charge errors presented in a motion for new trial. State v. McKnight, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2006 WL 2955324 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, No. 04-05-00295-CR, delivered October 18, 2006).
The State has filed a petition for discretionary review contending that the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis. Recently, in Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006), we held that the Almanza harm analysis does apply to jury-charge errors presented in a motion for new trial.
The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in Igo. Accordingly, we grant the State'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 Igo.