# Cardenas v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 26, 2000 · 30 S.W.3d 384

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9604559

## Case

- **Full name:** Ruben Ramirez CARDENAS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 26, 2000
- **Citations:** 30 S.W.3d 384; 2000 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 45; 2000 WL 489759
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Womack
- **Judges:** Meyers, McCormick, Mansfield, Price, Holland, Johnson, Keasler, Keller, Womack
- **Cited by:** 729 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9604559

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that appellant who did not address the question of whether the alleged error by the trial court in failing to include a jury instruction regarding the voluntariness of his statement to police was harmless constituted inadequate briefing under rule 38.1(i) and waived th…
- holding that defendant’s points of error were inadequately briefed “by neglecting to present argument and authorities” in support of them
- concluding that the appellant inadequately briefed his points by not addressing with argument and authorities the question of whether the alleged error of failing to include an instruction in the jury charge was harmless
- holding that defense counsel did not err in accepting venire person who knew potential witness in the case but who also stated that she could evaluate the evidence fairly and impartially evaluate that witness’s testimony
- concluding that appellant's statement he did not intend to hit victim not evidence he is guilty only of lesser included offense, particularly given the other evidence in the record that he intended to kill victim

## Opinion text

WOMACK, J.,
concurring.
I join the judgment of the court. I do not agree that the appellant’s fifth point of error was inadequately briefed, see ante at 2 n. 2. I would hold that the appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, as a matter of fact, has no merit.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9604559. Public record. Not legal advice.