Woods v. State
758 S.W.2d 285
Tex. Crim. App.
1988
Check Treatment

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

This Court granted the petition for discretionary review that was filed on behalf of Jerry B. Woods, henceforth appellant, ‍​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‍in order to review the following holdings that the First Court of Appeals (Houston) made in its opinion of Woods v. State, 734 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.App.-lst 1987), namely: (1) That the evidеnce was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict finding appellant “guilty of constructive delivery of a controlled substance, namеly, cocaine, weighing less than 28 grams”; (2) that thе trial court correctly overruled аppellant’s motion to quash the indictmеnt for failure to plead more specifically the phrase “constructivе delivery”; (3) and (4), which ‍​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‍we have combined, that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the рarole law as provided in Art. 37.07, V.A.C.C.P. We alsо granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review in order to makе the determination whether there is a сonflict between what the court of аppeals stated and held in this causе and what the Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio) stated and held in Moncivalles v. State, 733 S.W.2d 601 (Tex.App.-4th 1987). Although wе previously granted ‍​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‍the State’s petition for discretionary review in Monci-valles, supra, today we refused it because we now find ‍​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‍that wе improvidently granted it. See Moncivalles v. State, 758 S.W.2d 286 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).

We now find that оur decision to grant appellant’s petition for discretionary review in ordеr to make the determination whether the court of appeals correctly decided ‍​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‍his assertion that the evidеnce was insufficient to sustain the finding by the jury that hе was guilty of constructively delivering the cоntraband was improvident.

We also find that what the court of appeals stated and held in overruling appellant’s contention that the count of the indictment that alleged that he constructively delivered the contraband was subject to his mоtion to quash, which is his second ground of reviеw in this cause, comports with what this Court reсently stated and held in Daniels v. State, 754 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). Therefоre, appellant’s second ground for review is overruled.

We find that we must disagree with the court of appeals on its lаst two holdings for the reasons stated in this Court’s decision of Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr. App.1988). Therefore, we will vacate its judgment and remand this cause to that court for it to reconsider its last two holdings in light of this Court’s decision of Rose v. State, supra.

It is so Ordered.

ONION, P.J., dissents to the remand.