Court Opinion

ID: 9857467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:36:03.512425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:32.855437
License: Public Domain

BAIRD, Judge,
dissenting, on Denial of Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.
A jury found appellant guilty of possession of a controlled substance, namely cocaine, weighing less than 28 grams. Appellant pled true to two enhancement counts, and the jury assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement. The Court of Appeals reversed. Rankin v. State, 881 S.W.2d 14 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st] 1994). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Rankin v. State, 953 S.W.2d 740 (Tex.Cr.App.1996). This Court now refuses to hear appellant’s motion for rehearing.
This decision is in clear conflict with McFarland v. State, 930 S.W.2d 99 (Tex.Cr.App.1996), where Judge McCormick correctly determined when the Court of Appeals fails to address appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the case is not properly before us. “This Court has held that an appellate court must examine and decide a sufficiency challenge even if the conviction must be reversed on other grounds.” McFarland, 930 S.W.2d at 100 (citing Foster v. State, 635 S.W.2d 710, 717 (Tex.Cr.App.1982)).
Accordingly, our opinion in this case should be withdrawn and the judgment of the Court of Appeals vacated. Since the majority fails to follow extablished precedent, I respectfully dissent.