Ngoc Van Le v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ngoc Van Le v. State

761 S.W.2d 14, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 204, 1988 WL 118330

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 9, 1988

DocketNo. 695-87

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 761 S.W.2d 14 (Ngoc Van Le 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

Ngoc Van Le v. State, 761 S.W.2d 14, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 204, 1988 WL 118330 (Tex. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery. V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 29.03. The jury assessed a punishment of life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections and a $10,000 fine. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction in a published opinion. Ngoc Van Le v. State, 733 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the parole law. See Art. 37.07, § 4(a), V.A.C.C. [15]*15P. We hold that the Court of Appeals did err and reverse this cause and remand it for a harmless error analysis pursuant to our opinion in Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (on Court’s own motion for rehearing) and Tex.R.App.Pro. 81(b)(2).

Appellant argues that Art. 37.07, § 4(a), supra, violates the separation of powers doctrine of Art. II, § 1 of the Texas Constitution. In Rose, supra, we held, inter alia, that this statute violated the separation of powers doctrine. We also held that if an instruction was given under Art. 37.07, § 4(a), supra, a harmless error analysis must be conducted pursuant to Tex.R.App. Pro. 81(b)(2) to determine whether a reversal of the trial court judgment is necessary.

Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. This cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for a harm analysis consistent with this opinion.

Opinion on remand, 763 S.W.2d 504.

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 by a jury of aggravated robbery. V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 29.03. The jury assessed a punishment of life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections and a $10,000 fine. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction in a published opinion. Ngoc Van Le v. State, 733 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the parole law. See Art. 37.07, § 4(a), V.A.C.C. [15]*15P. We hold that the Court of Appeals did err and reverse this cause and remand it for a harmless error analysis pursuant to our opinion in Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (on Court’s own motion for rehearing) and Tex.R.App.Pro. 81(b)(2).

Appellant argues that Art. 37.07, § 4(a), supra, violates the separation of powers doctrine of Art. II, § 1 of the Texas Constitution. In Rose, supra, we held, inter alia, that this statute violated the separation of powers doctrine. We also held that if an instruction was given under Art. 37.07, § 4(a), supra, a harmless error analysis must be conducted pursuant to Tex.R.App. Pro. 81(b)(2) to determine whether a reversal of the trial court judgment is necessary.

Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. This cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for a harm analysis consistent with this opinion.

Opinion on remand, 763 S.W.2d 504.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

761 S.W.2d 14, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 204, 1988 WL 118330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ngoc-van-le-v-state-texcrimapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack