green
Positive treatment
Hot · 72 in 5y
Issue: evidentiary sufficiency standardTX ↗
Issue: punishment hearingTX ↗
Issue: jury charge errorTX ↗
Issue: sufficiency of the evidence standardTX ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
108.4 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 2014–2015 ·
…must answer two questions: 1) in the course of convicting the appellant of the greater offense, must the jury have necessarily found every element necessary to convict the appellant for the lesser-included offense; and 2) conducting an evidentiary sufficiency analysis as though …
at p. 300
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…the appellant would enjoy an 'unjust' windfall from an outright acquittal.
at p. 298
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Arteaga v. State
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
it is the reasoning, rather than the facts, of bowen that should decide its applicability in future cases.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LENNOX, BOBBY CARL AKA BOBBY CARL LEANOX v. the State of Texas
In fact, Arteaga borrowed from the sufficiency context in asserting a nonstandard remedy for the jury-charge error it addressed.49 The jury- charge error in that case, as in the present case, could have easily been reframed as a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge. 48 Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 298-99 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tony Bernard Wooldridge v. the State of Texas
A person commits an attempt if, "with specific intent to commit an offense, he does an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended." Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Hargro v. the State of Texas
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Desmond Tuggle v. the State of Texas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
App. 2024) (“If after finding the evidence insufficient to support a greater-inclusive offense the record clearly supports a conviction for an uncharged lesser-included offense, we are authorized, ‘indeed required,’ to avoid the ‘unjust’ result of an outright acquittal by reforming the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser-included offense.” (quoting Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eric Austin Mills v. the State of Texas
App. 2016); Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott Lee Martin v. the State of Texas
We sustain Martin’s first issue.5 When we find the evidence is insufficient, we must determine whether the conviction should be reformed to “reflect a conviction for a lesser-included offense.” Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trace Moffatt v. the State of Texas
App. 2017); Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lawrence Joseph Gall v. the State of Texas
The Court of Criminal Appeals developed a test in Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frias v. Hernandez
He posits that a reasonable person could also infer intent to impair the evidence’s verity or availability from plaintiffs’ “simply intend[ing] to dispossess [themselves] of the object in order to more plausibly disclaim any connection to it.” Thornton v. Texas, 425 S.W.3d 289, 304 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Jerome Louis Nelson v. the State of Texas
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 300.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Landon Johnson v. the State of Texas
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Thornton, 425 S.W.3d at 298, 300 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pat Lane Swanzy Jr. v. the State of Texas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Penal Code Ann. § 49.09(a) (authorizing conviction of a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown that the person has a prior conviction for a DWI). 25Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 730 (1998). 26See Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ruben Perez-Morales v. the State of Texas
Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Danielle Leigh Edwards v. the State of Texas
(2×)
If an appellate court finds “the evidence insufficient to support an appellant’s conviction for a greater-inclusive offense,” the court must consider the following two questions 5 when “deciding whether to reform the judgment to reflect a conviction for a lesser-included offense”: “1) in the course of convicting the appellant of the greater offense, must the jury have necessarily found every element necessary to convict the appellant for the lesser-included offense; and 2) conducting an evidentiary sufficiency analysis as though the appellant had been convicted of the lesser-includ…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frederick Joseph Tallman Jr. v. the State of Texas
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(c); Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Wade Briggs v. the State of Texas
Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
D'Audre Raashawn Hight-Ealy v. the State of Texas
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 ; Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael John Brumley v. the State of Texas
PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.04(b), 49.09(a); Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 307 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas Edward Blankenship v. the State of Texas
(2×)
Because in convicting Blankenship of the enhanced Class A offense of unlawful burning, the factfinder necessarily found every element required to convict him of the lesser-included Class C offense of unlawful burning, and because there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for the Class C offense, we are “authorized—indeed required— . . . [to] reform[] the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser-included [Class C] offense.” Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Forrest Newsom, Jr. v. the State of Texas
Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 299-300 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Francisco Ezequiel Lopez v. the State of Texas
Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas Edward Blankenship v. the State of Texas
(2×)
Because in convicting Blankenship of the enhanced Class A offense of unlawful burning, the factfinder necessarily found every element required to convict him of the lesser-included Class C offense of unlawful burning, and because there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for the Class C offense, we are “authorized—indeed required— . . . [to] reform[] the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser-included [Class C] offense.” Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Benton, Kip Lee
Such encouragement conflicts with the limited nature of habeas review and the policy 29 Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Quinton Womack v. the State of Texas
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 294 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Desean Laverne McPherson
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Under those facts, the court concluded, “There was not evidence from which a juror could have reasonably inferred that the pill bottle was ever hidden, removed from sight or notice, or kept from discovery or observation.” Id. (citing Thornton, 401 S.W.3d at 398 ; Thornton, 425 S.W.3d at 307 (Keller, P.J., concurring) (“Whatever else ‘conceal’ might mean in the context of the tampering with evidence statute, it at least means to remove from sight.”)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Griffin, Richard Dale
App. 2012) (appellate court seeks to avoid rendering a statutory provision redundant or meaningless). 24 See Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300-01 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chadman v. Director, TDCJ-CID
“In inquiring whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence, our task is to “determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” The relevant question “is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Under our case law, “[v]iewing the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the verdict’ . . . means that the reviewing court is required to defer to the jury’s credi…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jarod Smith v. State
Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 299-300 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Warrick L. Ball v. State
A person commits the misdemeanor version of the crime when he (1) intentionally flees (2) from a person he knows is a peace officer (3) who is attempting to lawfully 15 Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 299-300 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stahmann, Karl Dean
In her concurring opinion in Thornton, Presiding Judge Keller remarked that, “[w]hatever else ‘conceal’ might mean in the context of the tampering with evidence statute, it at least means STAHMANN — 8 to remove from sight.” 425 S.W.3d at 307 (Keller, P.J., concurring) (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnelle Renee Hall v. State
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 ; Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Chambers v. State
PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.10(c)(1); Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Duke Edward v. State
The trial court overruled both objections and appellant has not challenged those decisions in this appeal. 11 necessarily found every element necessary to convict the appellant for the lesser- included offense; and (2) conducting an evidentiary sufficiency analysis as though the appellant had been convicted of the lesser-included offense at trial, is there sufficient evidence to support a conviction for that offense?” Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Anton Lamont Stewart v. State
See id., 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S. Ct. at 2789 ; Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Darren Lamont Biggers v. State
After Britain, in Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 299-300 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Troy Kevin Mason v. State
See id., 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S. Ct. at 2789 ; Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Zacovey Dion Gibson v. State
See id., 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S. Ct. at 2789 ; Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Curvie Brinson v. State
See id., 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S. Ct. at 2789 ; Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Corey Demond Coleman v. State
Rather, we determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph Prestiano v. State
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
To decide whether Prestiano’s conviction for aggravated sexual assault by penetration should be reformed to a one for aggravated sexual assault by contact, we therefore must answer two questions: (1) in convicting Prestiano of aggravated sexual assault by penetration, must the trial court sitting as factfinder have necessarily found every element required to convict him of aggravated sexual assault by contact; and (2) is there legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction for aggravated sexual assault by contact? 11 See Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 300 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Herron v. State
And, under the facts at bar, we find no lesser included offense for which Appellant could be convicted per Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 299 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ricky Taylor Watson v. State
See id., 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S. Ct. at 2789 ; Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Raymond Soliz v. State
See id., 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S. Ct. at 2789 ; Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph Kevin Adamick v. State
App. 2016) (citing Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 305 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stanley Griffin v. State
Relying on Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 295-300 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brittin Robinson v. State
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 ; Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mark Anthony Lewis v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“Whatever else ‘conceal’ might mean in the context of the tampering with evidence statute, it at least means to remove from sight.” Thornton, 425 S.W.3d at 307 (Keller, P.J., concurring).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marco Tulio v. State
App. Sept. 12, 2018) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)); Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 303 (Tex. Crim.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Corey Thomas FREEMAN, Appellant
v.
the STATE of Texas
v.
the STATE of Texas
PD-1579-13.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Apr 2, 2014.
Jeff L. Pierce, Plano, TX, for Appellant., Greg Willis, District Attorney, McKinney, Lisa C. McMinn, State’s Attorney, AUSTIN, TX, for State.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
OPINION
PER CURIAM.Appellant was convicted of online solicitation of a minor under section 33.021(b) of the Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Freeman v. State, No. 05-12-00923-CR, — S.W.3d —, 2013 WL 4805698 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2013). Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review contending the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the constitutionality of the statute.
This Court granted discretionary review recently in Ex parte Lo in order to address whether section 33.021(b) is unconstitutional. We held it to be unconstitutional on its face due to overbreadth, reversed the decision of the court of appeals, and remanded to the trial court to dismiss the indictment. Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex.Crim.App.2013). The State’s motion for rehearing was denied on March 19, 2014. The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in Ex parte Lo. Accordingly, we grant Appellant’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further action in light of our opinion in Ex parte Lo.