Ramirez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ramirez v. State

836 S.W.2d 635, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 169, 1992 WL 222189

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 16, 1992

DocketNos. 020-91, 021-91, 022-92

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 836 S.W.2d 635 (Ramirez 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

Ramirez v. State, 836 S.W.2d 635, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 169, 1992 WL 222189 (Tex. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were each convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit bribery. Punishment in each case was assessed by the trial judge at confinement for eight years, probated for eight years, and a fine of $5,000.00. The Court of Appeals reversed. Ramirez v. State, 801 S.W.2d 110 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1990). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have considered the ground(s) presented and find the State’s petitions for discretionary review were improvidently granted and are, therefore, dismissed. As is true in every case where discretionary review is dismissed, the dismissal does not constitute an endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). With this understanding, we dismiss the State’s petitions for discretionary review.

McCORMICK, P.J., and WHITE, J., dissent.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were each convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit bribery. Punishment in each case was assessed by the trial judge at confinement for eight years, probated for eight years, and a fine of $5,000.00. The Court of Appeals reversed. Ramirez v. State, 801 S.W.2d 110 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1990). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have considered the ground(s) presented and find the State’s petitions for discretionary review were improvidently granted and are, therefore, dismissed. As is true in every case where discretionary review is dismissed, the dismissal does not constitute an endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). With this understanding, we dismiss the State’s petitions for discretionary review.

McCORMICK, P.J., and WHITE, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

836 S.W.2d 635, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 169, 1992 WL 222189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-state-texcrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack