Martinez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Martinez v. State

874 S.W.2d 684, 1994 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 50, 1994 WL 135626

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 20, 1994

DocketNo. 040-93

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 874 S.W.2d 684 (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, 874 S.W.2d 684, 1994 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 50, 1994 WL 135626 (Tex. 1994).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant pled guilty to committing the offense of murder and, pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for twenty years. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Martinez v. State, 841 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi, 1992).

The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our recent case interpreting Tex. RApp.Pro. 40(b)(1) and explaining the limits of jurisdiction concerning a notice of appeal. Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994). Accordingly, we summarily grant grounds one and two of the State’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals to reconsider appellant’s points of error in light of Davis. Ground three of the State’s petition is refused.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant pled guilty to committing the offense of murder and, pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for twenty years. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Martinez v. State, 841 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi, 1992).

The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our recent case interpreting Tex. RApp.Pro. 40(b)(1) and explaining the limits of jurisdiction concerning a notice of appeal. Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994). Accordingly, we summarily grant grounds one and two of the State’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals to reconsider appellant’s points of error in light of Davis. Ground three of the State’s petition is refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 S.W.2d 684, 1994 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 50, 1994 WL 135626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-state-texcrimapp-1994.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack