Cockerham v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Cockerham v. State

729 S.W.2d 742, 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 573

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 8, 1987

Docket194-86

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 729 S.W.2d 742 (Cockerham 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

Cockerham v. State, 729 S.W.2d 742, 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 573 (Tex. 1987).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

MILLER, Judge.

Appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery was reversed by the Court of Ap[743]*743peals. Cockerham v. State, 703 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1985). The Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecutor’s indirect comment on appellant’s failure to testify was both improper and harmful under Art. 38.08, V.A.C.C.P.

We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to examine the correctness of this holding. Upon careful review of the briefs of the respective parties and of the Court of Appeals’ opinion, we find that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct and does not merit further review by this Court. The State’s petition for discretionary review is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted, pursuant to Tex. R.App. Pro. Rule 202(k). Michalenko v. State, 678 S.W.2d 75 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Pruitt v. State, 678 S.W.2d 76 (Tex.Cr.App.1984).

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

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

MILLER, Judge.

Appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery was reversed by the Court of Ap[743]*743peals. Cockerham v. State, 703 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1985). The Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecutor’s indirect comment on appellant’s failure to testify was both improper and harmful under Art. 38.08, V.A.C.C.P.

We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to examine the correctness of this holding. Upon careful review of the briefs of the respective parties and of the Court of Appeals’ opinion, we find that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct and does not merit further review by this Court. The State’s petition for discretionary review is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted, pursuant to Tex. R.App. Pro. Rule 202(k). Michalenko v. State, 678 S.W.2d 75 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Pruitt v. State, 678 S.W.2d 76 (Tex.Cr.App.1984).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 S.W.2d 742, 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cockerham-v-state-texcrimapp-1987.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack