Well, there was a change in Klein on December 2. And two more dominoes fell today (maybe). See Purdy and White.

"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?

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?

...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.

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).

From 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.]

And it is not even published!!!!

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).