Martinez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Martinez v. State

810 S.W.2d 405, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 155, 1991 WL 111756

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 26, 1991

DocketNo. 1149-87

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 810 S.W.2d 405 (Martinez 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

Martinez v. State, 810 S.W.2d 405, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 155, 1991 WL 111756 (Tex. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to forty years confinement. The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in failing to include appellant’s requested jury charge instruction applying the law of parties to the facts of the case, reversed appellant’s conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial. Martinez v. State, 736 S.W.2d 233 (Tex.App. —Corpus Christi 1987).

We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine one issue: “Whether the Court of Appeals erred in overruling appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence since the evidence failed to show that appellant intentionally or knowingly caused the victim’s death.” We have reconsidered the issues raised and find that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. We decline to comment on the language or reasoning of the lower court. Appellant’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted and is accordingly dismissed.

BENAVIDES, J., not participating.

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 murder and sentenced to forty years confinement. The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in failing to include appellant’s requested jury charge instruction applying the law of parties to the facts of the case, reversed appellant’s conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial. Martinez v. State, 736 S.W.2d 233 (Tex.App. —Corpus Christi 1987).

We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine one issue: “Whether the Court of Appeals erred in overruling appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence since the evidence failed to show that appellant intentionally or knowingly caused the victim’s death.” We have reconsidered the issues raised and find that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. We decline to comment on the language or reasoning of the lower court. Appellant’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted and is accordingly dismissed.

BENAVIDES, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

810 S.W.2d 405, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 155, 1991 WL 111756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-state-texcrimapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack