McMillian v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

McMillian v. State

844 S.W.2d 749, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3, 1993 WL 864

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 6, 1993

Docket1003-90

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 844 S.W.2d 749 (McMillian 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

McMillian v. State, 844 S.W.2d 749, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3, 1993 WL 864 (Tex. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in a trial by jury of the felony offense of aggravated assault. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 22.-02(a)(1). The jury assessed punishment at ten years’ confinement and a fine of $5,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction in an opinion on rehearing. McMillian v. State, 799 S.W.2d 311 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that unadjudicated extraneous offenses were properly admitted at the punishment phase of appellant’s trial in response to his application for probation.

The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our recent opinion in Grunsfeld v. State, 843 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Cr.App., No. 1037-91, delivered October 28, 1992).

Therefore, we grant appellant’s petition for discretionary review. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause remanded to that court for reconsideration of the issues presented.

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 in a trial by jury of the felony offense of aggravated assault. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 22.-02(a)(1). The jury assessed punishment at ten years’ confinement and a fine of $5,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction in an opinion on rehearing. McMillian v. State, 799 S.W.2d 311 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that unadjudicated extraneous offenses were properly admitted at the punishment phase of appellant’s trial in response to his application for probation.

The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our recent opinion in Grunsfeld v. State, 843 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Cr.App., No. 1037-91, delivered October 28, 1992).

Therefore, we grant appellant’s petition for discretionary review. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause remanded to that court for reconsideration of the issues presented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

844 S.W.2d 749, 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3, 1993 WL 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillian-v-state-texcrimapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack