TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Williams v. State

Michael Thomas WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas

Williams v. State, 970 S.W.2d 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1998
Docket
No. 1198-97
Judges
McCORMICK
Citations
970 S.W.2d 5661998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 821998 WL 348520

Opinion — McCORMICK

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW McCORMICK, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court.

A jury convicted appellant of the felony offense of driving while intoxicated and sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but ordered a new trial on punishment holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.

Williams v. State, 946 S.W.2d 432 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1997). We granted discretionary review on grounds related to the Court of Appeals’ decision on the deadly weapon issue (grounds one through five) and the remedy it provided (grounds six and seven)..

We have decided our decision to grant discretionary review on grounds one through five and ground seven was improvident. In ground six, the State argues the Court of Appeals erred by ordering a new trial on punishment instead of deleting the deadly weapon finding. We agree. The proper remedy is to delete the deadly weapon finding. See, e.g., Narron v. State, 835 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). Therefore, the deadly weapon finding in the trial court’s judgment is ordered deleted.

We sustain ground six of the State’s petition, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and affirm the judgment of the trial court as reformed. Grounds one through five and ground seven of the State’s petition for discretionary review are dismissed as improvidently granted.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 13 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 61 cases

View all citing references →
1999: 42000: 62003: 62004: 32005: 12006: 32007: 42008: 62009: 32010: 22011: 22012: 42013: 32014: 12015: 52016: 42019: 12023: 12024: 12026: 119992026peak 2000 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Johnny Rodriguez v. StateNo. 03-99-00591-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 2, 2000)
  2. Mann v. State13 S.W.3d 89 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000)
  3. Edwin Harris Mann v. StateNo. 03-98-00153-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 16, 1999)
  4. Edwin Harris Mann v. StateNo. 03-98-00153-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 13, 2000)
  5. Rodriguez v. State31 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000)
  6. Mark Randall Brister v. State414 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013)

Most recent

  1. Jose Angel Martinezsalcido v. the State of TexasNo. 02-25-00216-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 1, 2026)
  2. Matthew Bradley Smith v. the State of TexasNo. 05-23-00361-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas May 8, 2024)
  3. Jason Lynn McKnight v. the State of TexasNo. 13-22-00453-CR (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi Aug. 24, 2023)
  4. Clark v. State573 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. App. 2019)
  5. Pedro Elizondo Martinez, Jr. v. StateNo. 03-14-00802-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 5, 2016)
  6. James Nicholas Guzman v. StateNo. 03-16-00280-CR (Tex. App.—Austin July 22, 2016)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Narron v. State, 835 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) 89
Williams v. State, 946 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. App. 1997) 56

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list