Milam v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Milam v. State

791 S.W.2d 120, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72, 1990 WL 59242

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 9, 1990

DocketNo. 200-88

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 791 S.W.2d 120 (Milam 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

Milam v. State, 791 S.W.2d 120, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72, 1990 WL 59242 (Tex. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

The appellant plead guilty to the offense of possession of phenylacetone¹ and the judge assessed punishment at 15 years in the Texas Department of Corrections.² On direct appeal, appellant argued he was “being illegally restrained of his liberty by the ex post facto legislation under which he was convicted.” The Court of Appeals observed the appellant was alleged to have possessed phenylacetone on August 2, 1985, and such conduct was not against the laws of this State until September 1, 1985. Milam v. State, 742 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988, pet. granted). On this basis, the court reversed appellant’s conviction and dismissed the indictment. Id. at 815.

This Court granted the State’s petition for discretionary review on the issue of the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction under Tex.R. App.P., 40(b). After careful review of the State’s petition, the record before us, and the briefs and responses filed by the parties, we have determined we improvidently granted the State’s petition for discretionary review.

Therefore, State’s petition is ordered dismissed. Just as in cases where this Court refuses to grant a petition for discretionary review, this Court’s decision in this cause to order State’s petition for discretionary [121]*121review dismissed because it was improvidently granted should not be construed as approval of the reasoning used by the Court of Appeals in reaching its decision.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

McCORMICK, P.J., dissents. TEAGUE, J., concurs in the result. STURNS, J., not participating.

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 appellant plead guilty to the offense of possession of phenylacetone¹ and the judge assessed punishment at 15 years in the Texas Department of Corrections.² On direct appeal, appellant argued he was “being illegally restrained of his liberty by the ex post facto legislation under which he was convicted.” The Court of Appeals observed the appellant was alleged to have possessed phenylacetone on August 2, 1985, and such conduct was not against the laws of this State until September 1, 1985. Milam v. State, 742 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988, pet. granted). On this basis, the court reversed appellant’s conviction and dismissed the indictment. Id. at 815.

This Court granted the State’s petition for discretionary review on the issue of the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction under Tex.R. App.P., 40(b). After careful review of the State’s petition, the record before us, and the briefs and responses filed by the parties, we have determined we improvidently granted the State’s petition for discretionary review.

Therefore, State’s petition is ordered dismissed. Just as in cases where this Court refuses to grant a petition for discretionary review, this Court’s decision in this cause to order State’s petition for discretionary [121]*121review dismissed because it was improvidently granted should not be construed as approval of the reasoning used by the Court of Appeals in reaching its decision.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

McCORMICK, P.J., dissents. TEAGUE, J., concurs in the result. STURNS, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

791 S.W.2d 120, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72, 1990 WL 59242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milam-v-state-texcrimapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack