Doyle v. State
Tex. Crim. App.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2017Rebecca Plumlee v. State Tex. App.
- 2015Quintero, Mario Josue Tex. App.
- 2015Thien Quoc Nguyen v. State Tex. App.
- 2015Colvin, Billy Gordon Tex.
- 2011Leslie Kay Klemansky v. State Tex. App.
- 2007Delgado, Eduardo Rivas AKA Rivas, Eduardo D. Tex. Crim. App.
- 2005Leon Wilburn, Jr. v. State Tex. App.
- 2005Nathan Lloyd Reed v. State Tex. App.
- 2002Gregory DeGrate v. State of Texas Tex. App.
- 1982Sears v. State Tex. Crim. App.
Cites 3 cases
- Tew v. State
- West v. State
- Cumbie v. State
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
OPINION
This is an appeal from a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 46.05. Punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, is imprisonment for life.
Appellant challenges the State’s proof of the two enhancement convictions. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not challenged. In the interest of justice, however, we note fundamental error in the court’s charge, and reverse appellant’s conviction on that ground.
The indictment in this case alleged that appellant knowingly and intentionally possessed a firearm away from the premises where he lived, having previously been convicted of burglary, a felony offense involving an act of violence to property.
In applying the law to the facts, the court charged the members of the jury that they should convict appellant if they found that he:
... was a person who had been convicted of a felony involving violence to property, namely Burglary on February 10,1969, in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County Texas in cause # 27436, and who possessed a firearm away from the premises where he lived, . ..
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
. We note that the court also failed to include a culpable mental state in the abstract definition of the offense that was contained in the charge. Paradoxically, the court did define the terms “knowingly” and “intentionally.”