Diaz v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Diaz v. State

796 S.W.2d 183, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 144

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Diaz v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 197 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided September 19, 1990·No. Nos. 0068-89, 0069-89·Published

Opinions

DISSENT TO REFUSAL OF APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

CLINTON, Judge,

dissenting.

In rejecting appellant’s jeopardy claim the court of appeals found that “where, as in the instant case, the state’s charge of possession with intent to deliver and delivery required proof of two separate quantities of cocaine, there can be no double jeopardy issue because the statute allows prosecution for each instance.” Diaz v. State, 762 S.W.2d 701 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).

Without intimating what our own determination might be, I would grant the petition to consider this novel and significant question of jeopardy law.

Because the majority does not, I respectfully dissent.

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

DISSENT TO REFUSAL OF APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

CLINTON, Judge,

dissenting.

In rejecting appellant’s jeopardy claim the court of appeals found that “where, as in the instant case, the state’s charge of possession with intent to deliver and delivery required proof of two separate quantities of cocaine, there can be no double jeopardy issue because the statute allows prosecution for each instance.” Diaz v. State, 762 S.W.2d 701 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).

Without intimating what our own determination might be, I would grant the petition to consider this novel and significant question of jeopardy law.

Because the majority does not, I respectfully dissent.

Diaz v. State, 796 S.W.2d 183, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 144 (Tex. 1990).

Pincite

796 S.W.2d 183 (Diaz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related