Griego v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 594
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Griego was convicted by a jury of evading arrest or detention and sentenced to 10 years’ confinement.
- The Court of Appeals found legally insufficient evidence to prove the offense as a felony due to lack of proof of a prior conviction at trial.
- The Court of Appeals also found the evidence factually insufficient and reversed/remanded for a new trial or related proceedings.
- The State timely sought discretionary review; the Court of Appeals withdrew its earlier opinion and later issued a revised opinion reforming the conviction to a class B misdemeanor, which was deemed untimely and outside proper jurisdiction.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review on ground six, vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Brooks v. State, which overruled Clewis and adopted Jackson v. Virginia as the sole standard for legal sufficiency.
- Brooks v. State overruled prior standards and instructed reviewing courts to apply Jackson v. Virginia for sufficiency determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for sufficiency in light of Brooks | Griego argues the Court of Appeals used the wrong standard. | Griego asserts the proper standard is Jackson v. Virginia as clarified by Brooks. | Remand to reconsider applying Brooks/Jackson standard. |
| Timeliness/jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals’ January 11, 2011 opinion | State claims the January 11 opinion should control. | Appellate opinion was untimely under Rule 50 and void. | Court of Appeals’ January 11 opinion withdrawn; original June 10, 2010 judgment reinstated. |
| Remand posture after Brooks | Case should be remanded considering Brooks. | Court should apply Brooks on remand. | Remand to the Court of Appeals to reconsider in light of Brooks. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (overruled Clewis and adopted Jackson v. Virginia for sufficiency review)
- Miller v. State, 267 S.W.3d 32 (Tex.Cr.App.2008) (jurisdictional/precedential principles cited by court)
- Jones v. State, 280 S.W.3d 847 (Tex.Cr.App.2006) (discusses timing of opinions and jurisdictional issues)
- Beller v. State, 191 S.W.3d 718 (Tex.Cr.App.2005) (jurisdictional timing considerations in appellate review)
- Parsons v. State, 187 S.W.3d 385 (Tex.Cr.App.2005) (procedural timing rules relevant to review)
- Ex parte Brashear, 985 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) (historical jurisdictional standards cited)
- Garza v. State, 896 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Cr.App.1995) (older authority referenced in jurisdictional context)