Box v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Box v. State

760 S.W.2d 261, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 206, 1988 WL 118332

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 9, 1988

Docket0725-87

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 760 S.W.2d 261 (Box 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

Box v. State, 760 S.W.2d 261, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 206, 1988 WL 118332 (Tex. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of indecency with a child. After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at ten (ten) years in the Texas Department of Corrections.

On direct appeal, Appellant argued the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the law concerning good time and parole, inasmuch as the charge is predicated upon an unconstitutional statute. The Court of Appeals rejected appellant’s challenge to Article 37.07, § 4, V.A.C.C.P. Box v. State, 730 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1987).

*262 In his petition for discretionary review, Appellant urges the Court of appeals erred in holding Article 37.07, § 4, supra, is constitutional. We find appellant is correct.

In Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), this Court determined that Article 37.07, § 4, is unconstitutional. Under Rose, supra, it is still necessary for the Court of Appeals to conduct a harmless error analysis under the guidelines of Tex. R.App.Pro. 81(b)(2).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and this case is remanded to that Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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