Estes v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Estes v. State

723 S.W.2d 753, 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 9431

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 17, 1986

DocketNo. 3-86-029-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 723 S.W.2d 753 (Estes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estes v. State, 723 S.W.2d 753, 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 9431 (Tex. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A jury found appellant guilty of murder and assessed punishment at imprisonment for forty-five years. Tex.Pen.Code Ann. § 19.02 (1974). The jury further found, in answer to a special issue, that appellant used a deadly weapon during the commission of this offense.

In his only ground of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by omitting from the charge at the punishment stage the instruction on the law of parole mandated by Tex.Code Cr.P.Ann. art. 37.07 § 4(a) (Supp.1986). Appellant did not object at trial to this omission.

Where no objection is made at trial, an error in the charge will require reversal only if the error is so egregious and created such harm that the accused was denied a fair and impartial trial. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). In his brief to this Court, appellant does not even suggest that he was harmed by the omission of the parole charge, and we do not perceive any harm to appellant from our examination of the record as a whole. In the absence of any [754]*754apparent harm to appellant, and in light of the serious questions that have been raised concerning the constitutionality of art. 37.-07 § 4,¹ we hold that the trial court did not commit fundamental error by failing to give the statutory charge on the law of parole.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

A jury found appellant guilty of murder and assessed punishment at imprisonment for forty-five years. Tex.Pen.Code Ann. § 19.02 (1974). The jury further found, in answer to a special issue, that appellant used a deadly weapon during the commission of this offense.

In his only ground of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by omitting from the charge at the punishment stage the instruction on the law of parole mandated by Tex.Code Cr.P.Ann. art. 37.07 § 4(a) (Supp.1986). Appellant did not object at trial to this omission.

Where no objection is made at trial, an error in the charge will require reversal only if the error is so egregious and created such harm that the accused was denied a fair and impartial trial. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). In his brief to this Court, appellant does not even suggest that he was harmed by the omission of the parole charge, and we do not perceive any harm to appellant from our examination of the record as a whole. In the absence of any [754]*754apparent harm to appellant, and in light of the serious questions that have been raised concerning the constitutionality of art. 37.-07 § 4,¹ we hold that the trial court did not commit fundamental error by failing to give the statutory charge on the law of parole.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

723 S.W.2d 753, 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 9431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estes-v-state-texapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack