Munoz v. State

809 S.W.2d 501, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 123, 1991 WL 87592
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided May 29, 1991·No. Nos. 333-91 to 335-91·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In a single trial, a jury convicted appellant of three separate offenses against three separate victims, attempted sexual assault and two aggravated sexual assaults. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for life for each of the aggravated sexual assault cases. The Court of [502]*502Appeals affirmed the conviction. Munoz v. State, 803 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1991).

Appellant raises two grounds for review. However, 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.

MALONEY, J., would grant.

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

Munoz v. State, 809 S.W.2d 501, 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 123, 1991 WL 87592 (Tex. 1991).

809 S.W.2d 501 (Munoz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Octavio Amaro v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016
Duwane Charles Shackelford v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009
Monroe v. State
864 S.W.2d 140 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Russell Lee v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992
Holland v. State
820 S.W.2d 221 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)