# Weinn v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 30, 2010 · 326 S.W.3d 189

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749273

## Case

- **Full name:** Corbett K. WEINN, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 30, 2010
- **Citations:** 326 S.W.3d 189; 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 793; 2010 WL 2595009
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Keasler
- **Judges:** Johnson, Meyers, Price, Womack, Holcomb, Cochran, Keller, Keasler, Hervey
- **Cited by:** 58 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/9749273

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that, in Guerrero, the “majority, comprised of two concurring judges and three dissenting judges, noted that the legislature did not intend multiple punishments for manufacture and simultaneous possession with intent to deliver with respect to a single quantity of c…
- stating that double jeopardy is violated when there is “a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction” (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977))
- holding a single act of simultaneous manufacture and resulting possession with intent to deliver with respect to a single quantity of a controlled substance constitutes a single violation
- holding simultaneous manufacture and resulting possession with intent to deliver when involving a single quantity of controlled substance only constitutes one offense
- explaining that common-focus factor “includes whether the gravamens of the offenses are the same”

## Opinion text

KEASLER, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion in which KELLER, P.J., and HERVEY, J., joined.
The majority incorrectly distinguishes the facts of this case from those in our recent decision in Guerrero v. State. 1 But the facts of Guerrero are identical. In Guerrero, a plurality of us held that Guerrero’s convictions for manufacturing and possessing with intent to deliver the same cache of methamphetamine did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. 2 Though Guerrero’s manufacture and possession with intent to deliver were close in time, they “were discrete acts with different impulses” — “one impulse to manufacture and another impulse to possess for the purpose of delivering what has been manufactured.” 3 The same can and should be said here. I would therefore hold that there is no jeopardy violation and reverse the court of appeals’s judgment.
. 305 S.W.3d 546 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (plurality op.).
. Id. at 553-54, 557, 560-61 .
.Id. at 554.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749273. Public record. Not legal advice.