Rodney Wayne Gray v. the State of Texas

Gray v. State · Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas · June 16, 2026 · No. No. 01-25-00105-CR

Summary

The First Court of Appeals of Texas reviews the adjudication of Rodney Wayne Gray’s guilt after deferred-adjudication community supervision. The court holds that, under Texas Penal Code section 46.02(a-1)(2)(A), the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Gray was engaged in criminal activity, including possession or attempted possession of methamphetamine, while carrying a handgun in a vehicle under his control. The court affirms the trial court’s judgment and eight-year sentence.

Holdings

  1. The phrase 'engaged in criminal activity' broadly encompasses criminal action or conduct, except for a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a traffic or boating law or ordinance.
  2. The State need not obtain a conviction for the underlying criminal activity; it may prove that activity under the applicable preponderance-of-the-evidence standard as part of proving the unlawful-carrying violation.
  3. The evidence supported a reasonable belief, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Gray was engaged in criminal activity by possessing methamphetamine or, at least, attempting to possess it while carrying the handgun.
  4. The trial court's failure to find unauthorized use of a vehicle or possession with intent to deliver did not preclude a finding that Gray possessed or attempted to possess methamphetamine and was therefore engaged in criminal activity for purposes of section 46.02(a-1)(2)(A).

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was sufficient under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to show that Gray was engaged in criminal activity while knowingly carrying a handgun in a vehicle under his control, as required by Texas Penal Code section 46.02(a-1)(2)(A).
  2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by adjudicating Gray guilty based on the unlawful-carrying violation despite finding the unauthorized-use allegation not true and declining to find the possession-with-intent-to-deliver allegation true.
  3. Whether the State was required to obtain a conviction or laboratory testing for the underlying criminal activity before proving the unlawful-carrying violation.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (28)

  • Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)(followed)
  • Bell v. State, 649 S.W.3d 867, 898 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2022, pet. ref'd)(followed)
  • Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)(followed)
  • Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763-64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)(followed)
  • Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)(followed)
  • Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981)(followed)
  • Black v. State, 411 S.W.3d 25, 28-30 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.)(followed)
  • Medina v. State, 555 S.W.3d 581, 590 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd)(followed)
  • Edwards v. State, 666 S.W.3d 571, 575 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023)(followed)
  • Rodriguez v. State, No. 14-23-00780-CR, 2024 WL 4234265, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 19, 2024, no pet.)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 28.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…