January 12, 2011, 10:36
Martin PetersonClewis overruled
Well, there was a change in Klein on December 2. And two more dominoes fell today (maybe). See
Purdy and
White.
January 12, 2011, 10:41
JB"The Court overruled all cases to the contrary." That seems pretty clear.
And, the per curiam has no dissents. So, isn't the opinion now unanimous?
January 25, 2011, 09:24
Martin Peterson Clewis is still rolling over and stretching out for another chance to breathe. It found an ardent supporter in Justice Seymore in
Temple, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 10075, who notes: "a majority of judges in
Brooks did not agree that eliminating factual-sufficiency review passed constitutional muster under Article V, section 5." Stay tuned. Where's the fat lady when you need her?
January 25, 2011, 10:38
Andrea W...Except that they did. What they didn't agree on was the rationale. They were pretty darned clear in agreeing that factual sufficiency reviews should be stopped. Oy.
January 25, 2011, 13:13
JBI guess if I had been an appellate judge for the last 15 years, wasting my time and energy writing pointless factual sufficiency reviews, I might now be a little peeved that the whole thing was actually and really a total waste of time. And if I was peeved, I might look for ways to tweak the CCA. But, bottom line is that the votes are there and have been re-affirmed in subsequent orders vacating and remanding cases (unanimously).
January 26, 2011, 11:22
JBFrom today's handdowns at CCA:
"The Court recently handed down a decision in Brooks, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), in which we overruled Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)..."
Details.[Seems pretty clear.]
January 26, 2011, 16:08
John A. StrideAnd it is not even published!!!!
November 29, 2011, 19:32
Martin PetersonTurns out that there is indeed no significant difference between
Clewis and
Jackson in certain types of cases (those heavily dependent on inferences from circumstantial evidence). The State sought no change in the adverse decision in
Ramirez and was unsuccessful on remand in
White.
Brooks did, however, change the final result in
Purdy and probably served to preserve the result in
Guyton (in which the court ultimately dismissed the PDR).