Kee v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Kee v. State

758 S.W.2d 788, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 181, 1988 WL 107835

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 19, 1988

DocketNo. 183-84

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 758 S.W.2d 788 (Kee 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

Kee v. State, 758 S.W.2d 788, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 181, 1988 WL 107835 (Tex. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

The record reflects that ROBBIE GENE KEE, henceforth appellant, was convicted by a jury of committing the offense of third degree felony theft, after which the trial judge assessed punishment at three (3) years’ confinement in the Department of Corrections.

On direct appeal, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence after finding that the trial judge committed reversible error by refusing to order the State to reveal the name of its informant. See Kee v. State, 666 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.App. — 5th 1983). Thereafter, this Court granted the State’s petition for discretionary review in order to review the decision of the court of appeals that sustained appellant’s contention that the trial judge erred in refusing to order the State to disclose the name of its informant, who was implicated in the commission of the offense, when it was relevant to the issue of appellant’s guilt.

[789]*789We have considered the issue presented and the Dallas Court of Appeals’ disposition of that issue. Now, it appears that the decision to grant the State’s petition for discretionary review was improvident.

Therefore, the State’s petition for discretionary review is hereby dismissed pursuant to Tex.R.App.Pro. Rule 202(k).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLINTON, J., concurs in the result. ONION, P.J., and McCORMICK and CAMPBELL, JJ., dissent.

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.

The record reflects that ROBBIE GENE KEE, henceforth appellant, was convicted by a jury of committing the offense of third degree felony theft, after which the trial judge assessed punishment at three (3) years’ confinement in the Department of Corrections.

On direct appeal, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence after finding that the trial judge committed reversible error by refusing to order the State to reveal the name of its informant. See Kee v. State, 666 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.App. — 5th 1983). Thereafter, this Court granted the State’s petition for discretionary review in order to review the decision of the court of appeals that sustained appellant’s contention that the trial judge erred in refusing to order the State to disclose the name of its informant, who was implicated in the commission of the offense, when it was relevant to the issue of appellant’s guilt.

[789]*789We have considered the issue presented and the Dallas Court of Appeals’ disposition of that issue. Now, it appears that the decision to grant the State’s petition for discretionary review was improvident.

Therefore, the State’s petition for discretionary review is hereby dismissed pursuant to Tex.R.App.Pro. Rule 202(k).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLINTON, J., concurs in the result. ONION, P.J., and McCORMICK and CAMPBELL, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

758 S.W.2d 788, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 181, 1988 WL 107835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kee-v-state-texcrimapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack