Preston v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Preston v. State

981 S.W.2d 211, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 166, 1998 WL 847640

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 9, 1998

DocketNo. 175-97

StatusPublished

This text of 981 S.W.2d 211 (Preston 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

Preston v. State, 981 S.W.2d 211, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 166, 1998 WL 847640 (Tex. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of commercial bribery and punishment was assessed at seven years confinement, probated. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Preston v. State, 934 S.W.2d 901 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist] 1996). We granted review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding: 1) appellant was not egregiously harmed by the omission from the jury charge of an instruction on the requirement for corroboration of accomplice witness testimony; and, 2) appellant’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to request the instruction. After careful review of the appellate record, the Court of Appeals’ opinion, as well as the briefs before this Court, we conclude that our initial decision to grant review was improvident. Accordingly, the petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of commercial bribery and punishment was assessed at seven years confinement, probated. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Preston v. State, 934 S.W.2d 901 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist] 1996). We granted review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding: 1) appellant was not egregiously harmed by the omission from the jury charge of an instruction on the requirement for corroboration of accomplice witness testimony; and, 2) appellant’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to request the instruction. After careful review of the appellate record, the Court of Appeals’ opinion, as well as the briefs before this Court, we conclude that our initial decision to grant review was improvident. Accordingly, the petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

981 S.W.2d 211, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 166, 1998 WL 847640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preston-v-state-texcrimapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack