Stevens v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Stevens v. State

844 S.W.2d 753, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 7, 1993 WL 3865

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 13, 1993

DocketNo. 284-92

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 844 S.W.2d 753 (Stevens v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stevens v. State, 844 S.W.2d 753, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 7, 1993 WL 3865 (Tex. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault and his punishment was assessed at thirty-seven years confinement. This conviction was affirmed. Stevens v. State, 822 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1992). We granted discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction despite a variance between the victim’s name as alleged in the indictment and the name proven at trial.

The Court of Appeals issued its opinion prior to our decision in Ward v. State, 829 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). In Ward, this Court, in interpreting Arts. 28.10 and 28.11, V.A.C.C.P., held that an amendment to an indictment is effectuated with the permission and direction of the court, but the amendment itself “is the actual alteration of the charging instrument.” Id. at 793. Consequently, in Ward, we held that the State’s proof was insufficient to sustain the allegations in the indictment.

Rather than address the merits of Appellant’s contention for the first time on petition for discretionary review, it is this Court’s opinion that this cause should be remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of Appellant’s arguments in light of Ward.

Therefore, we remand this cause to the Eleventh Court of Appeals for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault and his punishment was assessed at thirty-seven years confinement. This conviction was affirmed. Stevens v. State, 822 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1992). We granted discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction despite a variance between the victim’s name as alleged in the indictment and the name proven at trial.

The Court of Appeals issued its opinion prior to our decision in Ward v. State, 829 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). In Ward, this Court, in interpreting Arts. 28.10 and 28.11, V.A.C.C.P., held that an amendment to an indictment is effectuated with the permission and direction of the court, but the amendment itself “is the actual alteration of the charging instrument.” Id. at 793. Consequently, in Ward, we held that the State’s proof was insufficient to sustain the allegations in the indictment.

Rather than address the merits of Appellant’s contention for the first time on petition for discretionary review, it is this Court’s opinion that this cause should be remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of Appellant’s arguments in light of Ward.

Therefore, we remand this cause to the Eleventh Court of Appeals for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

844 S.W.2d 753, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 7, 1993 WL 3865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-state-texcrimapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack