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?
I 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).
Turns 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).