Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

993 S.W.2d 116

Perkins v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1999-06-09

Relies on Clewis v. State · Cain v. State · Perkins v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-06-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Johnson v. State (2000), BMC Software Belgium, NV v. Marchand (2002)

39 state decisions

320199920002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

PER CURIAM.

¶2 The appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated, third offense, at a trial before the judge without a jury. The Tenth Court of Appeals reversed the appellant’s conviction, stating that the evidence was factually insufficient to support the conviction. Perkins v. State, 940 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tex.App.—Waco 1997). The Dallas County District Attorney and the State Prosecuting Attorney each filed a petition for discretionary review before this Court.

¶3 We granted both petitions to determine (1) whether the Court of Appeals violated the procedural guidelines announced in Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr. App.1996), and (2) whether this Court has jurisdiction to review an intermediate court’s review of factual sufficiency to determine whether it applied the correct legal standard. We recently addressed the same issues in Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1997).

¶4 Because the Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our opinion in Cain when it decided this case, we vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court so that it may re-evaluate the appellant’s point of error in light of Cain.

/993/sw2d/116 · .json · Public domain