Opinion · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Williams v. State
1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 82
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Date
- 1998-07-01
- Topic
- general
concluding that proper remedy when appellate court sustains challenge to sufficiency of evidence to support deadly weapon finding is ordering deletion of deadly weapon finding rather than ordering new trial on punishment | concluding that proper remedy when appellate court sustains challenge to sufficiency of evidence to support deadly weapon finding is ordering deletion of deadly weapon finding rather than ordering new trial on punishment | deleting deadly-weapon finding when there was insufficient evidence showing that defendant used or exhibited deadly weapon during offense | to sustain finding, there must be evidence to show vehicle capable of causing death or serious bodily injury to another person | to sustain finding, there must be evidence to show vehicle capable of causing death or serious bodily injury to another person | reforming judgment proper remedy for correcting erroneous deadly weapon finding | remedy when affirmative finding erroneously made | remedy when affirmative finding erroneously made | remedy when affirmative finding erroneously made | remedy when affirmative finding erroneously made | remedy when affirmative finding erroneously made | remedy when affirmative finding erroneously made | remedy when affirmative finding erroneously made
Citator
- Cited by
- 30 opinions
OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,delivered the opinion of the Court.
A jury convicted appellant of the felony offense of driving while intoxicated and sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but ordered a new trial on punishment holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. Williams v. State, 946 S.W.2d 432 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1997). We granted discretionary review on grounds related to the Court of Appeals’ decision on the deadly weapon issue (grounds one through five) and the remedy it provided (grounds six and seven)..
We have decided our decision to grant discretionary review on grounds one through five and ground seven was improvident. In ground six, the State argues the Court of Appeals erred by ordering a new trial on punishment instead of deleting the deadly weapon finding. We agree. The proper remedy is to delete the deadly weapon finding. See, e.g., Narron v. State, 835 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). Therefore, the deadly weapon finding in the trial court’s judgment is ordered deleted.
We sustain ground six of the State’s petition, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and affirm the judgment of the trial court as reformed. Grounds one through five and ground seven of the State’s petition for discretionary review are dismissed as improvidently granted.