Carrillo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Carrillo v. State

826 S.W.2d 955, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 85, 1992 WL 67795

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 8, 1992

DocketNo. 152-92

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 826 S.W.2d 955 (Carrillo 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

Carrillo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 955, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 85, 1992 WL 67795 (Tex. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON THE STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance, and punishment was assessed by the trial court at twenty-five years confinement plus a $1,000.00 fine. His conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new trial. Carrillo v. State, 821 S.W.2d 697 (Tex.App — Dallas 1991).

The State raises two grounds for review before this Court. After careful consideration, we refuse the petition. However, as is true in every case in which discretionary-review is refused, our refusal 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 refuse the State’s petition for discretionary review.

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

OPINION ON THE STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance, and punishment was assessed by the trial court at twenty-five years confinement plus a $1,000.00 fine. His conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new trial. Carrillo v. State, 821 S.W.2d 697 (Tex.App — Dallas 1991).

The State raises two grounds for review before this Court. After careful consideration, we refuse the petition. However, as is true in every case in which discretionary-review is refused, our refusal 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 refuse the State’s petition for discretionary review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

826 S.W.2d 955, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 85, 1992 WL 67795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carrillo-v-state-texcrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack