IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NOS. PD-0775-17 & PD-0776-17
ANTONIO MOORE, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
BOWIE COUNTY
Per curiam.
OPINION
Appellant was charged in separate indictments with felony murder and intoxication
assault arising out of a vehicle collision that killed one person and injured another. The
cases were consolidated and tried together. The jury convicted appellant on both charges
and he was sentenced to ninety-nine years for each offense.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal in each case, and the court of appeals assigned
MOORE – 2
separate cause numbers – Cause No. 06-16-00144-CR to the appeal of the felony murder
conviction (the felony murder case) and Cause No. 06-16-00145-CR to the appeal of the
intoxication assault conviction (the intoxication assault case). Appellant filed a brief in
each case. In his brief in the felony murder case, appellant claimed (1) ineffective
assistance of counsel, and (2) legally insufficient evidence to support his conviction for
felony murder. In his brief in the intoxication assault case, appellant claimed (1)
ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) legally insufficient evidence to support his
conviction for intoxication assault.
The court of appeals issued two opinions, a lead opinion in the felony murder case
and a one-paragraph opinion in the intoxication assault case. In the lead opinion, the court
addressed appellant’s ineffective assistance claims and appellant’s claim that the evidence
was legally insufficient to support his felony murder conviction. In its summary, one-
paragraph opinion in the intoxication assault case, the court stated that appellant had
“filed a single brief in which he raises the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as to
both convictions. We addressed this issue in detail in our opinion of this date in Moore’s
appeal in our cause number 06-16-00144-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise
conclude that error has not been shown in this case.”
Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review in which he contends that
the court of appeals failed to address his claim that the evidence was legally insufficient
to support his conviction for intoxication assault. We agree. The court of appeals stated
MOORE – 3
that appellant had “filed a singe brief” when in fact he filed a brief in each case. While his
claims of ineffective assistance were virtually identical in the two cases, his insufficient
evidence claims related to each of his separate convictions. The court of appeals failed to
address appellant’s insufficient evidence claim regarding his intoxication assault
conviction which he raised in his brief in cause number 06-16-00145-CR. A court of
appeals must issue a written opinion “that addresses every issue raised and necessary to
final disposition of the appeal.” T EX. R. A PP. P. 47.1.
We grant ground two of appellant’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the
judgment of the court of appeals, and remand this case to that court to address appellant’s
argument that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for intoxication
assault. Ground one is refused with prejudice.
DELIVERED: December 13, 2017
DO NOT PUBLISH