Nixon v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Nixon v. State

942 S.W.2d 625, 1997 WL 165433

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 9, 1997

DocketNo. 1184-96

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 942 S.W.2d 625 (Nixon 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

Nixon v. State, 942 S.W.2d 625, 1997 WL 165433 (Tex. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANTS PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted for the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance. The trial judge conducted a pre-trial hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress and denied the motion. Upon appellant’s plea of not guilty, the State introduced a written stipulation of evidence and the trial judge found appellant guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Nixon v. State, 928 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1996). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine the correctness of that decision.

Subsequently, the State moved to amend and supplement the appellate record. Specifically, the State contended the trial judge entered findings of facts and conclusions of law which were unknown to either parly and, therefore, were not a part of the appellate record during the direct appeal. This Court granted the State’s motion. Because those findings and conclusions relate to the sole point of error raised in the Court of Appeals, we believe it would be inappropriate for this Court to consider them and address the merits of appellant’s ground for review. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and this cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

KELLER, J., dissents.

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

OPINION ON APPELLANTS PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted for the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance. The trial judge conducted a pre-trial hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress and denied the motion. Upon appellant’s plea of not guilty, the State introduced a written stipulation of evidence and the trial judge found appellant guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Nixon v. State, 928 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1996). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine the correctness of that decision.

Subsequently, the State moved to amend and supplement the appellate record. Specifically, the State contended the trial judge entered findings of facts and conclusions of law which were unknown to either parly and, therefore, were not a part of the appellate record during the direct appeal. This Court granted the State’s motion. Because those findings and conclusions relate to the sole point of error raised in the Court of Appeals, we believe it would be inappropriate for this Court to consider them and address the merits of appellant’s ground for review. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and this cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

KELLER, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

942 S.W.2d 625, 1997 WL 165433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nixon-v-state-texcrimapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack