Lockett v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Lockett v. State

861 S.W.2d 253, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 141, 1993 WL 346482

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 15, 1993

Docket591-93

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 861 S.W.2d 253 (Lockett 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

Lockett v. State, 861 S.W.2d 253, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 141, 1993 WL 346482 (Tex. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled nolo contendere to aggravated possession of a controlled substance. The trial court found appellant guilty and, pursuant to a plea agreement, assessed punishment at confinement for thirty-eight years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Lockett v. State, 852 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1993). Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review contending, inter alia, that the Court of Appeals erred by failing to address an issue raised by appellant in the trial court and in the Court of Appeals. He contends the Court of Appeals did not review the validity of the federal search warrant under either the Fourth Amendment or Article I, § 9 of the Texas Constitution. He also argues that the court failed to review the state search warrant under Fourth Amendment principles.

The Court of Appeals overruled appellant’s search and seizure points without separately addressing appellant’s contentions under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 9 of the Texas Constitution. Therefore, we summarily grant ground four of appellant’s petition for discretionary review. See Tex.R.App. Pro. 90(a). Appellant’s remaining grounds of error are dismissed without prejudice. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider appellant’s ground four.

McCORMICK, P.J., and CLINTON and MEYERS, JJ., dissent.

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 pled nolo contendere to aggravated possession of a controlled substance. The trial court found appellant guilty and, pursuant to a plea agreement, assessed punishment at confinement for thirty-eight years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Lockett v. State, 852 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1993). Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review contending, inter alia, that the Court of Appeals erred by failing to address an issue raised by appellant in the trial court and in the Court of Appeals. He contends the Court of Appeals did not review the validity of the federal search warrant under either the Fourth Amendment or Article I, § 9 of the Texas Constitution. He also argues that the court failed to review the state search warrant under Fourth Amendment principles.

The Court of Appeals overruled appellant’s search and seizure points without separately addressing appellant’s contentions under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 9 of the Texas Constitution. Therefore, we summarily grant ground four of appellant’s petition for discretionary review. See Tex.R.App. Pro. 90(a). Appellant’s remaining grounds of error are dismissed without prejudice. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider appellant’s ground four.

McCORMICK, P.J., and CLINTON and MEYERS, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 S.W.2d 253, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 141, 1993 WL 346482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockett-v-state-texcrimapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack