Froyd v. State
| Decision Date | 02 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 263-82,263-82 |
| Citation | 633 S.W.2d 884 |
| Parties | Virginia Beam FROYD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ken J. McLean, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., Calvin Hartmann and Chris Hanger, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of aggravated robbery, V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 29.03, and her punishment was assessed at imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections for 16 years.
The court of appeals reversed because the trial court overruled the appellant's pro se motion to require the court reporter to record final arguments of counsel. Froyd v. State, 628 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi, 1982).
The appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review complaining that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. This question was not addressed by the court of appeals although presented in her brief. The State has filed a cross-petition for discretionary review arguing that the appellant was not entitled to hybrid representation and that the trial court did not deny the appellant's pro se motion for the court reporter to take down final arguments.
We agree that at least since the decision in Burks v. U. S., 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), and Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 98 S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978), the appellant is entitled to a review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction when challenged even though reversal is required on other grounds. Hooker v. State, 621 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Watson v. State, 605 S.W.2d 877 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).
Therefore, pursuant to the authority conferred on this Court by Arts. 44.37 and 44.45(b), V.A.C.C.P.; Rule 304(a), Texas Rules of Post-Trial and Appellate Procedure; and Sanchez v. State, 628 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), the Appellant's petition for discretionary review is granted and this case is remanded to the court of appeals for the 13th Supreme Judicial District for consideration of the appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. This Court expresses no opinion with respect to the ultimate disposition of this contention but only finds that the court of appeals should have considered the challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence. The State's petition for discretionary review is refused.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forte v. State
...to the sufficiency of the evidence must be considered even though reversal is required on other grounds. See Froyd v. State, 633 S.W.2d 884, 885 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) . This is so because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, if sustained, bars a retrial. Graham v. State, 643 S.W.2d......
-
Love v. State
...need not address points of error three through seven. However, we will address both sufficiency challenges. Froyd v. State, 633 S.W.2d 884 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (en banc) (per curiam). The evidence established that Dorothy Addicks drove her 1982 Ford LTD to her job at the Brenham State School......
-
Birl v. State, 6-87-053-CR
...challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must be considered even though a reversal is required on other grounds. Froyd v. State, 633 S.W.2d 884, 885 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). This is so because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, if sustained, bars a retrial and requires the entr......
-
Hazelwood v. State, 13-91-456-CR
...[1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.); Froyd v. State, 628 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1982), remanded on other grounds, 633 S.W.2d 884 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). However, a patient trial judge may allow both counsel and the accused to jointly take part in the case. Webb v. State, 533 S.W.2d 7......