1 John T. Boyd, Chief Just ice (Ret.), Seventh C ourt of Appeals, sitting by

assignment
. NOS. 07-00-0105- CR; 07-00-0106- CR; 07-00-0107-CR; 07- 00-0108-CR; 07-00-0109-CR; 07- 00-0110-CR; 07-00-0111-CR; 07- 00-0112-CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L E JULY 21, 2003

______________________________ W ILLIAM CASH LOVE, A PPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE64 TH DISTRICT COURT OF SW ISHER COUNTY; NOS. B3249-99-07CR; B3250- 99-07-CR; B3251-9 9-07-CR; B3252-99 -07-CR; B3253-99-07- CR; B3254-99-07-CR; B3352 -99-07-CR; B3354- 99-07-CR

HONORAB LE JACK

R. MILLE R, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN, J., and BOYD, S.J. 1 MEM ORANDU M OPIN ION2

Appellant William Cas h Lo ve a ppe als f romeigh t co nvic

tio ns fo r delivery of controlled substances. The c harges were consolidated for trial. Appe llant pr esents 38 issues in his consolidated appeal. W e reverse and rem and. Appellant w as in dicted in Sw ishe r Co unt y in Causes B3249-99-07 -CR, B3250-99- 07-CR, B3251-99-07- CR, B3252-99-07- CR, B3253-99-07-CR, B3254 -99-07-CR, B3352- 99-07-CR, B3354-99-07- CR
. The indictm ents w ere for d eliveryof controlled substances of various kinds and am ounts o n variousoccas ions. The chargeswer e consolidated for tri al be fore a jury, which returned guilty verdicts and ass essed varying punishm ents
. Appellant has appealed each conviction. Appella nt’s consolidated brief presents 38 issues by which he pra ys that we reverse the convicti ons and remand the cases for new trials. Via issues one th rough eleven appellant asserts that the State fai led to di sclose material evidence which was exculpatory, favorable to appellant, or which could have been us ed to impeac h State w itnesses. Appellant has filed a s upplem ental bri ef to wh ich he attached an app end ix consisti ng of parts of a docum ent entitled Joint Stipulated Findings of Fact an d Conclusions of Law from a collateral proceeding (“the Stipulations”). The Stipulati ons set out that the State, appellant, and others, stipulate to m atters set out in the docum ent. Following filing of appell ant’s supplem ental brief, the State advised the Court that the docum ent appended to appellant’s supplem ental brief accurately set s forth the State’s2 Brady v. M aryland , 373 U .S. 8 3, 83 S .Ct. 1 194, 10 L.Ed. 2d 215 (1 963). 3 “new position” in regard to appellant’s appellate issues and ma tte rs included in the docum ent. Included in the Stipulations are specific findings and con clus ionstha t th e S tate did notdisclose to appellant or h is coun sel, eith er p re- tria l or d urin g tr ial, evidence which (1) wasma terial to appellant’s defense, (2) was f av orabl e to appell ant, and (3) would h ave been used to im peach State’s witnesses. Als o inc lude d in the Stipulations is an agreed-to conclusion that the Brady 2 doc trin e was v iolated a nd t hat thecas es s hou ld be rem anded for a new t rial. The State has an affirmative duty to disclose m aterial, exculpatory evidence to a defendant. See Brady , 373 U.S. at 87; Ex pa rte Kim es , 872 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex.Crim .App. 1993). Brady evid ence is “m ate rial” if t her e is a re aso nab le prob ability thatif the evidence had been disclosed, the outcom e of the proceeding would have been different. United States v. Bagley , 473 U.S. 66 7, 681-82 , 105 S.Ct. 3375, 8 7 L.Ed.2d 481(1985); Kimes , 872 S.W.2d at 702. Based upon the State’ s response and its new po si ti on as t o a pp el la nt ’s i ssu es , we sus tain appellant’s first issue. Our dispositi o n of issue num ber one is dispositive of the appeals. Accordingly, we do not consider any other issues. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.1. We reverse the j udgme nts and reman d the cases for furt her proceedings. T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2.4 Phil Johnson Chief Justi ce Do not publish.