Joseph Martinez v. State ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                           COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 2-08-112-CR
    JOSEPH MARTINEZ                                                      APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                        STATE
    ------------
    FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
    ------------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
    ------------
    In two issues, appellant Joseph Martinez contends that his convictions
    for possession and delivery of the same ten pounds of marijuana are the same
    for double jeopardy purposes and that the trial judge erred by refusing to include
    a jury question on possession of marijuana under five pounds. We reverse the
    1
    … See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    judgment as to the possession charge and acquit appellant on that charge only;
    however, we affirm the judgment as to the delivery charge.
    The State concedes appellant’s first issue and asks that we delete
    appellant’s conviction for possession. Accordingly, we sustain appellant’s first
    issue.
    In his second issue, appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to
    include a question on possession of under five pounds.            But because by
    sustaining appellant’s first issue, we must reverse the conviction for
    possession, his second issue is now moot and we need not address it.2 See
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; Dixon v. State, 
    932 S.W.3d 567
    , 571 (Tex. App.—Tyler
    1995, no pet.).
    Having sustained appellant’s first issue and having determined that his
    second issue is therefore moot, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as to the
    conviction for delivery of marijuana, but we reverse the trial court’s judgment
    2
    … When an appellant is convicted of two offenses that are the same for
    double jeopardy purposes, we retain the conviction for the most serious
    offense, which is the offense of conviction for which the greatest sentence was
    assessed. Ex parte Cavazos, 
    203 S.W.3d 333
    , 337–38 (Tex. Crim. App.
    2006). Here, that is the sentence of ten years’ confinement for delivery.
    2
    as to the conviction for possession of marijuana and render a judgment of
    acquittal as to that offense only.
    TERRIE LIVINGSTON
    JUSTICE
    PANEL: LIVINGSTON, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: December 11, 2008
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-08-00112-CR

Filed Date: 12/11/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/4/2015