From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mccarty v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Oct 30, 1991
820 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 562-90.

September 18, 1991. Rehearing Denied October 30, 1991.

Appeal from the 297th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County; Harry Hopkins, J.

James H. Shaw, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., and C. Chris Marshall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fort Worth, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the Court en banc.


OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW


A jury convicted appellant of aggravated possession of amphetamine, a controlled substance. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4476-15, §§ 4.041(a) and (c), and 4.02(d)(1)(A), see now Tex.Health Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.116(a) and (c) and 481.103(a)(3). The jury sentenced appellant to seven years in prison, probated, and a suspended $5,000 fine.

On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals found the evidence insufficient, reversed appellant's conviction and entered an order of acquittal. McCarty v. State, 788 S.W.2d 213 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth, 1990). We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in its sufficiency analysis.

We have reconsidered the issue raised and find that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. We decline to comment on the language or reasoning of the lower court. The State's petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted and is accordingly dismissed. See Tex.R.App.Pro. 202(k).

WHITE, J., concurs in the result.

McCORMICK, P.J., dissents.


Summaries of

Mccarty v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Oct 30, 1991
820 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
Case details for

Mccarty v. State

Case Details

Full title:Kellye Marie McCARTY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: Oct 30, 1991

Citations

820 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Allen v. State

The State justifies its proposed test under the frank heading: " II. JACKSON V. VIRGINIA AND SUFFICIENCY…