Court Opinion

ID: 9775133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:44:35.5706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:20.806920
License: Public Domain

OVERSTREET, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent to the majority’s disposition of this case because once again this Court seeks to decide a case based on nothing more than what it believes the result should be. In doing so, the court is once again second-guessing a decision of the appellate court. “Our principal role as a court of last resort is the caretaker of Texas law, not the arbiter of individual applications.” Arcila v. State,, 834 S.W.2d 357, 360 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). In reviewing courts of appeals decisions, it is our duty to ensure that the lower court reviewed the appropriate pertinent facts and performed an adequate analysis using proper case law. Unless during our review we determine that the appellate court did not properly analyze the appropriate pertinent facts in light of existing case law and reach an opinion based upon that analysis, we must give deference to the judgment. We must not substitute our own judgment just because we would have reached a different result in performing the same analysis of the same facts and case law. This Court is justified in reversing a decision of the court of appeals and remanding the case to be reconsidered when the appellate court does not rely on the appropriate pertinent facts or applicable case law in performing its analysis to reach a decision.
It appears that the majority’s justification for reaching a different a result rests on the following premise. The majority states that the court of appeals “did not fully consider all the facts and did not apply controlling case law.” In doing so, the majority details non-accomplice evidence that 1) demonstrates that appellant was with the accomplice on the night of the offense, 2) connects appellant to a weapon similar to the one used to commit the offense, and 3) indicates that appellant departed soon after the victim was killed.1 The facts pointed out by the majority are similar to the facts of Cruz v. State, 690 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), which was relied upon by the court of appeals in its analysis. In Cruz there was testimony that the defendant had a weapon similar to the weapon used in the crime, the defendant had been near the scene of the crime, and the defendant had disappeared after the crime. Because Cruz is still good law, the court of appeals was correct in relying upon it in the instant case and was not unreasonable in concluding that the non-accomplice testimony was insufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the offense. Hernandez v. State, 907 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1995). The fact that the majority cites other cases which the court of appeals could have used in its analysis does not diminish the validity of the court of appeals’ analysis and conclusion. The facts of the other cases are dissimilar enough to justify the court of appeals’ reliance on Cruz, which appears more analogous. If this Court is unwilling to abide by the principle of Arcila, *180supra then we should overrule Arcila instead of following it at our whim or ignoring it at our whim. See Arcila, supra, Overstreet, J., dissenting.
Thus, it is my opinion that this Court ought to review evidentiary sufficiency questions only when the lower court either fails to consider the applicable law or faded to account for all the appropriate pertinent facts. Since the court of appeals in this case did neither, I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and dismiss the State’s petition for discretionary review as improvidently granted.

. The majority does not indicate in its opinion any appropriate pertinent facts that the court of appeals did not consider.