Hill v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hill v. State

663 S.W.2d 457, 1984 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 582

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 1, 1984

DocketNo. 965-83

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 663 S.W.2d 457 (Hill 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

Hill v. State, 663 S.W.2d 457, 1984 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 582 (Tex. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of rape of a child. Punishment was assessed by the jury at imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections for 99 years after having found the enhancement paragraph to be true. The conviction was reversed by the Dallas Court of Appeals in a published opinion by Justice Stewart, with a dissenting opinion by Justice Guillot. Hill v. State, 658 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.App.1983).

The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction finding the evidence insufficient to support the appellant’s conviction in absence of both corroboration and prompt outcry, relying upon the original opinion of this Court in Hernandez v. State, 651 S.W.2d 746 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). However, on June 8, 1983, this Court, on rehearing, adopted the concurring opinion as the majority opinion. Hernandez v. State, 651 S.W.2d 746 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

Therefore, pursuant to the authority conferred on this Court by Articles 44.37 and 44.45(b), V.A.C.C.P., Tex.Cr.App.R. 304(a), the State’s petition for discretionary review is granted. Sanchez v. State, 628 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Froyd v. State, 633 S.W.2d 884 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District for reconsideration of the sufficiency contention and others presented by the appellant but not addressed by the Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of rape of a child. Punishment was assessed by the jury at imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections for 99 years after having found the enhancement paragraph to be true. The conviction was reversed by the Dallas Court of Appeals in a published opinion by Justice Stewart, with a dissenting opinion by Justice Guillot. Hill v. State, 658 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.App.1983).

The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction finding the evidence insufficient to support the appellant’s conviction in absence of both corroboration and prompt outcry, relying upon the original opinion of this Court in Hernandez v. State, 651 S.W.2d 746 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). However, on June 8, 1983, this Court, on rehearing, adopted the concurring opinion as the majority opinion. Hernandez v. State, 651 S.W.2d 746 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

Therefore, pursuant to the authority conferred on this Court by Articles 44.37 and 44.45(b), V.A.C.C.P., Tex.Cr.App.R. 304(a), the State’s petition for discretionary review is granted. Sanchez v. State, 628 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Froyd v. State, 633 S.W.2d 884 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District for reconsideration of the sufficiency contention and others presented by the appellant but not addressed by the Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

663 S.W.2d 457, 1984 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-texcrimapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack