Cook v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Cook v. State

828 S.W.2d 11, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92, 1992 WL 73481

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 15, 1992

DocketNo. 180-92

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 828 S.W.2d 11 (Cook 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

Cook v. State, 828 S.W.2d 11, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92, 1992 WL 73481 (Tex. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[12]*12OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of violation of the state securities act and, after finding appellant had previously been convicted of a felony, assessed punishment at confinement for twenty years. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served consecutive to a federal sentence previously assessed against appellant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Cook v. State, 824 S.W.2d 634 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991).

Appellant raises three grounds for review. After careful review we refuse appellant’s petition for review. However, as is true in every case in which discretionary review is refused, this 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). Specifically, we do not agree that failure to object waives any error in an order requiring sentences to be served consecutively. See Ex parte Voelkel, 517 S.W.2d 291 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). With this understanding, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

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

[12]*12OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of violation of the state securities act and, after finding appellant had previously been convicted of a felony, assessed punishment at confinement for twenty years. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served consecutive to a federal sentence previously assessed against appellant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Cook v. State, 824 S.W.2d 634 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991).

Appellant raises three grounds for review. After careful review we refuse appellant’s petition for review. However, as is true in every case in which discretionary review is refused, this 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). Specifically, we do not agree that failure to object waives any error in an order requiring sentences to be served consecutively. See Ex parte Voelkel, 517 S.W.2d 291 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). With this understanding, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

828 S.W.2d 11, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92, 1992 WL 73481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-state-texcrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack