Granberry v. State
This text of 758 S.W.2d 284 (Granberry 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.
Opinion
OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted in a bench trial of driving while intoxicated, and his punishment was assessed at 120 days in jail, probated, and a $250 fine. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Granberry v. State, 745 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1987).
Appellant raises one ground for review. We agree with the Court of Appeals that reversal is not required. However, we do not necessarily agree with the Court of Appeals that appellant did not invoke his right to counsel or his right to silence. As is true in every case where 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).
[285]*285With 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
758 S.W.2d 284, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 242, 1988 WL 101243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/granberry-v-state-texcrimapp-1988.