Moffett v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Moffett v. State

750 S.W.2d 790, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 100, 1988 WL 51455

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 25, 1988

DocketNos. 1014-86, 1015-86

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 750 S.W.2d 790 (Moffett 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

Moffett v. State, 750 S.W.2d 790, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 100, 1988 WL 51455 (Tex. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of possession of cocaine and of investing in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The trial court assessed his punishment at 20 years and life, respectively, in the Texas Department of Corrections, with a $50,000 fine also imposed in the investment conviction. Both convictions were affirmed on appeal. Moffett v. State, 716 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1986).

Appellant raises eight grounds for review. We agree with the Court of Appeals that none require reversal. However, we [791]*791do not necessarily agree with the Court of Appeals that appellant did not preserve his State law grounds relating to the validity of the search warrant relied upon in the search of appellant’s house. See Polk v. State, 738 S.W.2d 274 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). As is true in every case where discretionary review is refused, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

With this understanding, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of possession of cocaine and of investing in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The trial court assessed his punishment at 20 years and life, respectively, in the Texas Department of Corrections, with a $50,000 fine also imposed in the investment conviction. Both convictions were affirmed on appeal. Moffett v. State, 716 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1986).

Appellant raises eight grounds for review. We agree with the Court of Appeals that none require reversal. However, we [791]*791do not necessarily agree with the Court of Appeals that appellant did not preserve his State law grounds relating to the validity of the search warrant relied upon in the search of appellant’s house. See Polk v. State, 738 S.W.2d 274 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). As is true in every case where discretionary review is refused, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

With this understanding, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

750 S.W.2d 790, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 100, 1988 WL 51455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moffett-v-state-texcrimapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack