Janice Ellen Smith v. Allstate Indemnity Company--Appeal from 172nd District Court of Jefferson County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 9th District Court of Appeals » 2002 » Janice Ellen Smith v. Allstate Indemnity Company--Appeal from 172nd District Court of Jefferson County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 09-01-00348-CV

Case Date: 11/21/2002

Plaintiff: Eric Hodge

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County

Preview:Rodney Cordell Edwards v. The State of Texas--Appeal
from 40th District Court of Ellis County
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-04-00195-CR
Rodney Cordell Edwards,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 40th District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 28048CR
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Edwards appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 30.02(a), (d) (Vernon 2003).
We affirm.
Evidence. In Edwards s first issue, he contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence. Edwards fails to cite
relevant authorities. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). We
overrule Edwards s first issue.
Sufficiency of the Evidence. In Edwards s second issue, he contends that the evidence was insufficient. Edwards
argues that there was no evidence that he was guilty as a party. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 7.01(a) (Vernon 2003). The
State points primarily to eyewitness testimony identifying Edwards as the burglar.
Legal Sufficiency. Considering the record evidence in the light most favorable to the jury s verdict, we determine that
a rational jury could have found Edwards guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
318-19 (1979); Prible v. State, No. AP-74,487; 2005 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 110, at *12-*13 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan.
26, 2005).
Factual Sufficiency. Viewing the evidence in a neutral light, we determine that the evidence is not so weak that the
verdict is clearly wrong or manifestly unjust, and that the contrary evidence is not so strong that the beyond-a-
reasonable-doubt standard could not have been met. See Prible, 2005 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 110, at *16; Zuniga v.
State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6743.html[8/20/2013 7:21:36 PM]

We overrule Edwards s second issue.
Brady Evidence. In Edwards s third issue, he contends that the State failed to produce Brady evidence. See Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Edwards fails to establish that the evidence was favorable or material. See Strickler v.
Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 (1999); Brady at 87; Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). We
overrule Edwards s third issue.
Pro-Se Issues. In an appendix, Edwards s counsel includes as a fourth issue one or more pro-se issues by Edwards.
Edwards has no right to hybrid representation. Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004),
cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 872 (2005). We do not address Edwards s fourth issue.
Having overruled Edwards s issues, we affirm the judgment.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Justice Vance concurring with note)*
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed August 3, 2005
Do not publish
[CRPM]
* (Justice Vance concurs. The perfunctory manner in which this opinion disposes of the issues does not assist the
litigants, the higher courts, the Bench and Bar, or the public. There is essentially no analysis of the sufficiency issues
under the applicable standards only conclusions. This opinion suggests either that counsel for the appellant did not
brief issues worthy of our consideration or that we have not given the issues our careful attention. I believe we should
provide more of the facts and our analysis, even in memorandum opinions. Thus, I cannot join this opinion.)
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6743.html[8/20/2013 7:21:36 PM]

Download 6743.pdf