Ex Parte Pharr

897 S.W.2d 795, 1995 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 41, 1995 WL 144233
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 5, 1995
Docket71966
StatusPublished
Cited by67 cases

This text of 897 S.W.2d 795 (Ex Parte Pharr) 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
Ex Parte Pharr, 897 S.W.2d 795, 1995 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 41, 1995 WL 144233 (Tex. 1995).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted of two capital murders. Pursuant to a plea agreement, punishment was assessed at life imprisonment in each cause, to be served consecutively. No appeal was taken.

Applicant contends that the trial court improperly cumulated the sentences in these causes because they arose out of the same criminal episode and were prosecuted in the same criminal action. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 3.03; LaPorte v. State, 840 S.W.2d 412 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). The trial court found that applicant was not tried in a single criminal action. We agree.

The Texas Legislature intended a “single criminal action” to refer to a single trial or plea proceeding. LaPorte, 840 S.W.2d at 414. A defendant is prosecuted in a “single criminal action” when allegations and evidence of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode are presented in a single trial or plea proceedings. LaPorte, 840 S.W.2d at 415.

Here, the statement of facts shows that in cause number 7760 applicant pleaded guilty, was admonished, was found guilty, and was sentenced. Immediately thereafter, in cause number 7761 applicant pleaded guilty, was admonished, was found guilty, and was sentenced. The record supports the trial court’s finding that applicant was not tried in a single criminal action. The cumu-lation order did not violate Section 3.03.

The relief sought by applicant is denied.

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

Related

Kenneth Dewayne Nelson v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2019
Miranda Renea Kelso v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018
Shain Michael Pugh v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018
Vincent Gage Santoro v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018
Eric Weems Rogers v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2017
Eian Tilor Hurlburt v. State
506 S.W.3d 199 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016)
Telly R. Joyce v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014
Hockeem Jamal Jefferson v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013
Geoffrey Tyler Wood v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013
Rodrick Francis Hartfield v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
Christopher Lee Pousson v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
Grady Leroy Martin v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009
Thomas Johnson v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009
Tracy Lynn Meneley v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009
Larry Don Dotson v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008
Ex Parte Robert J. Gallemore
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008
Green v. State
242 S.W.3d 215 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
897 S.W.2d 795, 1995 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 41, 1995 WL 144233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-pharr-texcrimapp-1995.