IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
MAY 27, 2004
______________________________MATTHEW THOMIS ANDRAE, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. 2003C-1027; HONORABLE BILL HOLLARS, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONOn May 17, 2004, the parties filed an Agreement to Remand with this Court, indicating that this case should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
It is therefore ordered, that the judgment of the trial court be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Phil Johnson
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
EN-US X-NONE X-NONENO. 07-09-00206-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
OCTOBER 26, 2010
NICK LEE GRIEGO, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B17934-0902; HONORABLE EDWARD LEE SELF, JUDGE
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ORDER
In light of the Texas Court of Criminal Appealss recent decision in Brooks v. State, No. PD-0210-09, 2010 Tex.Crim.App. LEXIS 1240 (Tex.Crim.App. Oct. 6, 2010) (plurality opinion) and pursuant to Rule 50 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we withdraw our opinion issued in the instant cause on June 6, 2010, in which this Court found the evidence to be factually insufficient to support a state-jail felony conviction of evading arrest or detention using a vehicle and reversed and remanded the cause for a new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 50. The State has filed a motion for reconsideration and an amended petition for discretionary review. In its motion for reconsideration, the State asks that this Court reconsider its opinion in the instant cause and affirm the trial courts judgment of conviction based on the States proposed application of Brooks.
Though we reserve our opinion as to the precise import of Brooks and express no opinion about such at this time, we note that the plurality opinion in Brooks has called into question the viability of factual sufficiency as a distinct point on which disposition of an appeal may rest. In light of this potentially notable development and its potential application to the instant cause, we exercise our authority under Rule 38.9 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to order the parties to brief the issues of evidentiary sufficiency presented by this case in light of Brooks. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(b).
The parties will please note that we have abridged the timetable for filing these supplemental briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.7. Appellants brief will be due no later than twenty days from the date of this order. The States brief is due twenty days from the date appellants brief is filed. No motions for extension of time will be entertained by the Court. After the parties have filed their briefs, we will consider the application of Brooks and promptly issue another opinion in the instant cause pursuant to Rule 50.
We, therefore, grant that portion of the States motion asking this Court to reconsider its opinion in the instant cause in light of Brooks. Because the merits of the States proposed application of Brooks to the instant cause will be further developed by briefing and addressed in the Courts forthcoming opinion, we will carry that portion of the States motion asking this Court to affirm the trial courts judgment until such time that the Court has the benefit of the parties briefing on this issue.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.