Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): egregious harm from the trial court’s error in submitting the lesser-included-offense charge. V. Conclusion We sustain appellant’s third issue to the extent that it concerns whether the State was entitled to the lesser-included-offense charge under the first step of the Rousseau lesser-included-offense test. Given our disposition, we need not consider the remainder of appellant’s third issue (concerning whether the State was entitled to the lesser-included-offense charge under the second step of the Rousseau lesser-included-offense test) or appellant’s second issue (concerning the factual sufficiency of the evidence). We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause with instructions to dismiss the indictment. See Hampton v. State, 165 S.W.3d 691, 694 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (<HOLDING>) (footnotes omitted); Konchar v. State, 938 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the greater offense is  by definition the same for purposes of double jeopardy as any lesser offense included in it (B) holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense (C) holding that court of appealss remedy on remand from reversal for harmful charge error based on failure to meet second step of rousseau lesserincludedoffense test was to remand for a retrial for the lesser offense  because the jurys verdict that the appellant was guilty of the lesserincluded offense  operates as an acquittal of the greater offense  to which jeopardy had attached this prevents a retrial for the greater offense but not for the lesser offense (D) holding that where jury was instructed on both a greater offense and lesserincluded offense and the jury convicted on the lesserincluded offense the double jeopardy provision prohibited retrial on the greater offense (E) recognizing that it is within  our power to direct entry of judgment on a lesser included offense when vacating a greater offense if the commission of the lesser offense can be established from facts that the jury actually found citations omitted
Output (English): holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense