Reichenau v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Reichenau v. State

723 S.W.2d 752, 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 505

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 4, 1987

DocketNo. 131-86

StatusPublished

This text of 723 S.W.2d 752 (Reichenau 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

Reichenau v. State, 723 S.W.2d 752, 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 505 (Tex. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

[753]*753OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of theft over $20,000. On appeal, a panel majority of the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that, in order to question the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, it was incumbent upon the appellant to file a motion for instructed verdict or some similar pleading with the trial court in order to preserve the error. Reichenau v. State, 702 S.W.2d 712 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1985). We refuse the petition for discretionary review; however, our refusal of the appellant’s petition for discretionary review is not to be taken as an approval of the reasoning or the decision of the Court of Appeals on this ground of error.

With this understanding, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

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

[753]*753OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of theft over $20,000. On appeal, a panel majority of the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that, in order to question the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, it was incumbent upon the appellant to file a motion for instructed verdict or some similar pleading with the trial court in order to preserve the error. Reichenau v. State, 702 S.W.2d 712 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1985). We refuse the petition for discretionary review; however, our refusal of the appellant’s petition for discretionary review is not to be taken as an approval of the reasoning or the decision of the Court of Appeals on this ground of error.

With this understanding, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

723 S.W.2d 752, 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reichenau-v-state-texcrimapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack