Flores v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Flores v. State

676 S.W.2d 364, 1984 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 683

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 20, 1984

DocketNo. 172-83

StatusPublished

This text of 676 S.W.2d 364 (Flores 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

Flores v. State, 676 S.W.2d 364, 1984 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 683 (Tex. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

McCORMICK, Judge.

We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to review the holding of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, 654 S.W.2d 14, as to the appellant’s allegation of jury misconduct resulting from discussion of parole laws. The Court of Appeals applied the test that was set out in the plurality opinion in Munroe v. State, 637 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), and found no reversible error. On May 23, 1984, this Court handed down an opinion in the case of Sneed v. State, 670 S.W.2d 262 (1984), in which we readopted “the five prong test of pre-Heredia cases.” See Heredia v. State, 528 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).

We have reviewed this case under the five-prong test adopted in Sneed and have determined that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct. The appellant’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted. It is, therefore, ordered dismissed.

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

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

McCORMICK, Judge.

We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to review the holding of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, 654 S.W.2d 14, as to the appellant’s allegation of jury misconduct resulting from discussion of parole laws. The Court of Appeals applied the test that was set out in the plurality opinion in Munroe v. State, 637 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), and found no reversible error. On May 23, 1984, this Court handed down an opinion in the case of Sneed v. State, 670 S.W.2d 262 (1984), in which we readopted “the five prong test of pre-Heredia cases.” See Heredia v. State, 528 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).

We have reviewed this case under the five-prong test adopted in Sneed and have determined that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct. The appellant’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted. It is, therefore, ordered dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 S.W.2d 364, 1984 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-state-texcrimapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack