Pennywell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Pennywell v. State

125 S.W.3d 472, 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 76, 2003 WL 1918436

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 23, 2003

Docket1182-02

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 125 S.W.3d 472 (Pennywell 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

Pennywell v. State, 125 S.W.3d 472, 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 76, 2003 WL 1918436 (Tex. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Appellant of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit theft. See V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1). After finding the two enhancement allegations to be true, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for thirty-five years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction after finding that Appellant had no standing to contest the search of a stolen bag and that Appellant’s thirty-five-year punishment was permissible as he stipulated to the two enhancement paragraphs. Pennywell v. State, 84 S.W.3d 841 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002). Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review.

In Appellant’s petition, he contends the Court of Appeals erred by failing to address every issue raised in his brief. In his first point of error, he alleged, in part, that he had been illegally detained and that, therefore, the search and seizure of the complained-of bag and its contents should have been suppressed as the fruit of that illegal detention. Because this ground was “necessary to final disposition of the appeal,” the Court of Appeals was required to address it. Tex.R.App. P. 47.1. We agree.

Therefore, we grant Appellant’s petition for discretionary review, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of Appellant’s first point of error that is necessary to a final disposition of the appeal. Rule 47.1.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Appellant of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit theft. See V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1). After finding the two enhancement allegations to be true, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for thirty-five years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction after finding that Appellant had no standing to contest the search of a stolen bag and that Appellant’s thirty-five-year punishment was permissible as he stipulated to the two enhancement paragraphs. Pennywell v. State, 84 S.W.3d 841 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002). Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review.

In Appellant’s petition, he contends the Court of Appeals erred by failing to address every issue raised in his brief. In his first point of error, he alleged, in part, that he had been illegally detained and that, therefore, the search and seizure of the complained-of bag and its contents should have been suppressed as the fruit of that illegal detention. Because this ground was “necessary to final disposition of the appeal,” the Court of Appeals was required to address it. Tex.R.App. P. 47.1. We agree.

Therefore, we grant Appellant’s petition for discretionary review, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of Appellant’s first point of error that is necessary to a final disposition of the appeal. Rule 47.1.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.W.3d 472, 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 76, 2003 WL 1918436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennywell-v-state-texcrimapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack