Norton v. State

771 S.W.2d 560, 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 111, 1989 WL 56434
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided May 24, 1989·No. No. 1343-88·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury for credit card abuse and sentenced to 2 years probation. The trial court imposed 20 days confinement in the county jail as a condition of probation. The conviction was reversed and the case was remanded on appeal. Norton v. State, 755 S.W.2d 522 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st] 1988).

We have considered the issues raised and find that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. The petition for discretionary review will be refused.

As is true in every case where this Court refuses a petition for discretionary review, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. See Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

With this understanding, the State’s petition for discretionary review is refused.

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

Norton v. State, 771 S.W.2d 560, 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 111, 1989 WL 56434 (Tex. 1989).

771 S.W.2d 560 (Norton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brady Joseph Ray v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
George Gaal v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
United States v. Olis
571 F. Supp. 2d 777 (S.D. Texas, 2008)
Roman v. State
145 S.W.3d 316 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Roman, Ernest v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004
Roque, Ricardo v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003
Wright v. State
776 S.W.2d 763 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)