Allen v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Allen v. State

517 S.W.3d 111, 2017 WL 1337658, 2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 380

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 12, 2017

DocketNO. PD-1252-15

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 517 S.W.3d 111 (Allen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. State, 517 S.W.3d 111, 2017 WL 1337658, 2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 380 (Tex. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Cunam.

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder. The trial court assessed his punishment at forty-five years in the penitentiary. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court erred to exclude evidence which he contended was relevant to his claim of self-defense. The court of appeals rejected his claims, partly on the basis of procedural default and partly on the merits. Allen v. State, 473 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015). We granted discretionary review in order to examine the rulings of the court of appeals. Having examined the record and the briefs, we have determined that our decision to grant review was improvident. Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s petition for discretionary review as improvidently granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

Per Cunam.

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder. The trial court assessed his punishment at forty-five years in the penitentiary. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court erred to exclude evidence which he contended was relevant to his claim of self-defense. The court of appeals rejected his claims, partly on the basis of procedural default and partly on the merits. Allen v. State, 473 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015). We granted discretionary review in order to examine the rulings of the court of appeals. Having examined the record and the briefs, we have determined that our decision to grant review was improvident. Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s petition for discretionary review as improvidently granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 S.W.3d 111, 2017 WL 1337658, 2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-state-texcrimapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack