Vanderburg v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Vanderburg v. State

874 S.W.2d 683, 1994 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 49, 1994 WL 135625

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 20, 1994

Docket218-93

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 874 S.W.2d 683 (Vanderburg 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

Vanderburg v. State, 874 S.W.2d 683, 1994 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 49, 1994 WL 135625 (Tex. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON THE STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of criminal trespass and the trial court sentenced *684 him to thirty days confinement in the county jail. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and rendered a judgment of acquittal. Vanderburg v. State, 843 S.W.2d 286 (Tex.App.1992). The State filed a petition for discretionary review alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in holding proof of a greater right of possession in the complainant is not sufficient to support a conviction for criminal trespass.

The facts of this case are almost identical to those in our recent opinion of Arnold v. State, 867 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), in which this Court held that “in criminal trespass cases where the State alleges ownership ... the State may establish ownership by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant had a greater right to possession of the property than the defendant.” Id. at 379. See also, Langston v. State, 855 S.W.2d 718, 721 at n. 7 (Tex.Cr.App.1993).

The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our recent opinion in Arnold. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is summarily reversed and the case is remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of Arnold.

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

OPINION ON THE STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of criminal trespass and the trial court sentenced *684 him to thirty days confinement in the county jail. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and rendered a judgment of acquittal. Vanderburg v. State, 843 S.W.2d 286 (Tex.App.1992). The State filed a petition for discretionary review alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in holding proof of a greater right of possession in the complainant is not sufficient to support a conviction for criminal trespass.

The facts of this case are almost identical to those in our recent opinion of Arnold v. State, 867 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), in which this Court held that “in criminal trespass cases where the State alleges ownership ... the State may establish ownership by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant had a greater right to possession of the property than the defendant.” Id. at 379. See also, Langston v. State, 855 S.W.2d 718, 721 at n. 7 (Tex.Cr.App.1993).

The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our recent opinion in Arnold. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is summarily reversed and the case is remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of Arnold.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 S.W.2d 683, 1994 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 49, 1994 WL 135625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanderburg-v-state-texcrimapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack