Court Opinion

ID: 9863063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:01:51.47133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:46:47.217996
License: Public Domain

DUNCAN, Judge,
concurring.
I again feel compelled to express my opposition to the Court’s reviewing a court of appeals’ judgment regarding the sufficiency of evidence. In Beardsley v. State, 738 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (Duncan, J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion), I stated that “[w]e should only review those Court of Appeals’ decisions that erroneously impact the criminal law of this state.” Id., at 686. The court of appeals’ subjective determination that there was sufficient evidence to convict Lloyd Dale Martin of aggravated possession of methamphetamine, even if it is erroneous as the majority has concluded, does not “erroneously impact the criminal law of this state.” Id. Therefore, we should never have granted the appellants’ petition for discretionary review.
On the other hand, since review was granted, I concur with the majority’s conclusion “that the state did not sustain its burden of proof that appellant was a party to the offense of possession of methamphetamine.”