Ikner v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ikner v. State

848 S.W.2d 161, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 55, 1993 WL 52250

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 3, 1993

Docket007-93, 008-93

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 848 S.W.2d 161 (Ikner 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

Ikner v. State, 848 S.W.2d 161, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 55, 1993 WL 52250 (Tex. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

*162 OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

BAIRD, Judge.

The trial judge convicted appellant of resisting arrest and driving while intoxicated. Initially, the Court of Appeals affirmed but later, after the filing of appellant’s petition for discretionary review, on its own motion pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 101, withdrew its earlier opinion and reversed the convictions. Ikner v. State, 848 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1992). The State now petitions for review contending the Court of Appeals erred by not addressing the State’s argument that appellant had not preserved the error for appellate review. Weatherford v. State, 828 S.W.2d 12 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). We agree.

The Court of Appeals sustained appellant’s points of error without deciding whether the error was preserved for appellate review. Therefore, we summarily grant the State’s petitions for discretionary review. See Tex.R.App.P. 90(a). The judgments of the Court of Appeals are vacated and the causes are remanded to that court for consideration of the State’s arguments concerning non-preservation.

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

*162 OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

BAIRD, Judge.

The trial judge convicted appellant of resisting arrest and driving while intoxicated. Initially, the Court of Appeals affirmed but later, after the filing of appellant’s petition for discretionary review, on its own motion pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 101, withdrew its earlier opinion and reversed the convictions. Ikner v. State, 848 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1992). The State now petitions for review contending the Court of Appeals erred by not addressing the State’s argument that appellant had not preserved the error for appellate review. Weatherford v. State, 828 S.W.2d 12 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). We agree.

The Court of Appeals sustained appellant’s points of error without deciding whether the error was preserved for appellate review. Therefore, we summarily grant the State’s petitions for discretionary review. See Tex.R.App.P. 90(a). The judgments of the Court of Appeals are vacated and the causes are remanded to that court for consideration of the State’s arguments concerning non-preservation.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

848 S.W.2d 161, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 55, 1993 WL 52250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ikner-v-state-texcrimapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack