# Nilda Iliana Rodriguez v. State

> Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · July 31, 2013 · 408 S.W.3d 628

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812613

## Case

- **Full name:** Nilda Iliana RODRIGUEZ, Appellant v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- **Decided:** July 31, 2013
- **Citations:** 408 S.W.3d 628; 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9871; 2013 WL 4007578
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Field
- **Judges:** Jones, Goodwin, Field
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Rodriguez, Nilda Iliana, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 876 (2014).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812613

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that error in Rodriguez’s indictment—which alleged omissions rather than affirmative acts to support felony-murder charge—was an indictment defect subject to forfeiture

## Opinion text

SCOTT K. FIELD, Justice,
concurring.
The Court requested supplemental briefing on whether the evidence is suffi-eient to support appellant’s conviction. I would not have joined in that request had I been on the panel at that time. Appellant never argued sufficiency of the evidence in her original brief and therefore has not preserved this ground for appeal. See Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(f); Rochelle v. State, 791 S.W.2d 121, 124-25 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (“[Sjtated policy of the rules [of appellate procedure is] that all matters be raised in the original brief.”). The Court’s request for additional briefing did not “grant or even impliedly grant a supplemental issue for review”; thus, this Court is not required to address the sufficiency of the evidence, and I believe it should decline to do so in this case. See Ganett v. State, 220 S.W.3d 927, 928-29 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (concluding that appellate court not required to address issues not raised in original brief, even when court requests supplemental briefing).
I concur in the majority’s analysis of the issues raised in appellant’s original brief and the judgment of the Court. 1
. I express no opinion about the sufficiency of the evidence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812613. Public record. Not legal advice.