Holland v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Holland v. State

845 S.W.2d 914, 1993 WL 19963

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 3, 1993

DocketNo. 120-92

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 845 S.W.2d 914 (Holland 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

Holland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 914, 1993 WL 19963 (Tex. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and sentenced to thirty days confinement plus a $2,000 fine. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Holland v. State, 820 S.W.2d 221 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1991).

In his petition for discretionary review Appellant argues that the Court of Appeals was incorrect in holding that evidence of an unadjudicated DWI offense was admissible during the punishment phase of trial. Since the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming Appellant’s conviction, this Court has held that unadjudicated extraneous offenses are inadmissible at the punishment phase of trial. Grunsfeld v. State, 843 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our opinion in Grunsfeld. Therefore, we will remand this case in light of that opinion.

Ground one of Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of Grunsfeld. Appellant’s remaining grounds are dismissed without prejudice.

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

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and sentenced to thirty days confinement plus a $2,000 fine. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Holland v. State, 820 S.W.2d 221 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1991).

In his petition for discretionary review Appellant argues that the Court of Appeals was incorrect in holding that evidence of an unadjudicated DWI offense was admissible during the punishment phase of trial. Since the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming Appellant’s conviction, this Court has held that unadjudicated extraneous offenses are inadmissible at the punishment phase of trial. Grunsfeld v. State, 843 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our opinion in Grunsfeld. Therefore, we will remand this case in light of that opinion.

Ground one of Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of Grunsfeld. Appellant’s remaining grounds are dismissed without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

845 S.W.2d 914, 1993 WL 19963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-state-texcrimapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack