Hughes v. State
692 S.W.2d 64, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1260
Opinion
OPINION ON REFUSAL OF APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Under a heading, “SELECTIVE PROSECUTION,” the published opinion of the Austin Court of Appeals somewhat cryptically states:
“Further the evidence from the statement of facts clearly shows that since McWilliams [v. State, 634 S.W.2d 815] supra, with the abandonment of the carving doctrine, multiple charges can be filed in a single criminal episode involving a single victim.”
Hughes v. State, 673 S.W.2d 654, 659 (Tex.App.—Austin 1984), petition refused.
The above quoted statement should be read in light of opinions of this Court in Drake v. State, 686 S.W.2d 935 (Tex.Cr.App.1985) and Ex parte Siller, 686 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), both delivered February 27, 1985.
The petition for discretionary review is refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hughes v. State, 692 S.W.2d 64, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1260 (Tex. 1985).
692 S.W.2d 64 (Hughes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
in the Matter of R. G.
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002
Ex Parte Thurmon
822 S.W.2d 170 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
David v. State
808 S.W.2d 239 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Ex parte Carden
711 S.W.2d 673 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)