Booker v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Booker v. State

836 S.W.2d 634, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 172, 1992 WL 222188

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 16, 1992

DocketNo. 1146-91

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 836 S.W.2d 634 (Booker 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

Booker v. State, 836 S.W.2d 634, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 172, 1992 WL 222188 (Tex. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[635]*635OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of theft pursuant to Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.-03(e)(4)(E). Punishment was assessed at thirty-five years confinement. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d). The Court of Appeals reversed. Booker v. State, 816 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1991). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals was correct in its determination that appellant’s plea of nolo contendere was not voluntary.

We have considered the ground presented and find the State’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted and is, therefore, dismissed. As is true in every case where discretionary review is dismissed, the dismissal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). With this understanding, we dismiss the State’s petition for discretionary review.

McCORMICK, P.J., and WHITE, J. dissent.

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