Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00086-CV
ONE (1) 1992 CHEVROLET PICKUP, VIN 1GCEC14Z4NE164549,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-CI-13890
Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 8, 2014
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Timothy Edward Knoeppel appeals from a judgment in a forfeiture case. We reverse and
remand.
In its petition, the State of Texas alleged that one 1992 Chevrolet pickup truck, VIN
1GCEC14Z4NE164549, was subject to forfeiture because it was used in the crime of driving while
intoxicated. The State further alleged that Knoeppel, the truck’s registered owner, was driving the
truck when he committed the offense of driving while intoxicated. Knoeppel filed an answer
denying the allegations in the State’s petition. The State then filed a motion for traditional summary
04-13-00086-CV
judgment, which was accompanied by evidence. No response to the summary judgment motion
was filed. The trial court granted the summary judgment, and Knoeppel filed a notice of appeal.
In the proceedings below, the State was required to establish its entitlement to summary
judgment by conclusively proving all essential elements of its cause of action as a matter of law.
See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 678
(Tex. 1979). On appeal, Knoeppel argues the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to
support the summary judgment. 1 In its brief, the State agrees with Knoeppel that the summary
judgment evidence was insufficient to establish its cause of action as a matter of law. The State
therefore asks us to reverse the judgment and remand this case to the trial court.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment, and remand this case to the trial court
for further proceedings.
Karen Angelini, Justice
1
Knoeppel raises other issues in his brief. However, we do not address these issues because they are not necessary to
the disposition of this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.
-2-