Was there a recent CCA opinion that stated an appellant must state specific grounds for challenging the sufficiency of evidence?

I seem to remember a recent case that said he can not just claim the evidence was not sufficient but has to state which element was not proved.

For a factual sufficiency claim McDuff 939 S.W.2d at 613 pretty much supports you. For legal sufficiency you could cite Gallegos, 76 S.W.3d at 228. Several unpublished court of appeals cases say factually sufficiency has to be properly briefed -- just run 38.1 /p factual! /s suff!

You might be thinking of Sims, 99 S.W.3d at 600 (appelalte court must dicuss the evidece relied upon by appellant in making a factual sufficiency claim)

THAT'S IT! This one has been bothering me, I am going to brief the issues anyway, but I do want to be able to dig at opposing counsel.

Any time they don't offer a specific sufficiency attack on a given element I always argue that they've conceded the sufficiency as to that element. Doesn't work with just a general argument, though.