Bugarin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Bugarin v. State

789 S.W.2d 594, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92, 1990 WL 70665

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 30, 1990

DocketNo. 1558-89

StatusPublished

This text of 789 S.W.2d 594 (Bugarin 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

Bugarin v. State, 789 S.W.2d 594, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92, 1990 WL 70665 (Tex. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of burglary of a vehicle, and assessed punishment, enhanced with two prior felony convictions, at 50 years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed. Bugarin v. State, 777 S.W.2d 556 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1989). Appellant petitioned this Court for review claiming that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that delivery of the parole law charge under Art. 37.07, Sec. 4, V.A.C.C.P., was not reversible error.

We have considered the issue raised and find that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. The petition for discretion[595]*595ary review will be refused. As is true in every case where this Court refuses a petition for discretionary review, however, refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. See Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Moreover, harm determinations relevant to submission of the unconstitutional parole statute are now governed by this Court’s opinion in Arnold v. State, 784 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Cr.App.1990).

With this understanding, appellant’s petition for discretionary review is refused.

McCORMICK, P.J., concurs. TEAGUE, J., dissents.

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

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of burglary of a vehicle, and assessed punishment, enhanced with two prior felony convictions, at 50 years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed. Bugarin v. State, 777 S.W.2d 556 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1989). Appellant petitioned this Court for review claiming that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that delivery of the parole law charge under Art. 37.07, Sec. 4, V.A.C.C.P., was not reversible error.

We have considered the issue raised and find that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. The petition for discretion[595]*595ary review will be refused. As is true in every case where this Court refuses a petition for discretionary review, however, refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. See Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Moreover, harm determinations relevant to submission of the unconstitutional parole statute are now governed by this Court’s opinion in Arnold v. State, 784 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Cr.App.1990).

With this understanding, appellant’s petition for discretionary review is refused.

McCORMICK, P.J., concurs. TEAGUE, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 S.W.2d 594, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92, 1990 WL 70665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bugarin-v-state-texcrimapp-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack