Richardson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Richardson v. State

824 S.W.2d 585, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 37, 1992 WL 38108

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 4, 1992

Docket014-92

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 824 S.W.2d 585 (Richardson 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

Richardson v. State, 824 S.W.2d 585, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 37, 1992 WL 38108 (Tex. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of engaging in organized criminal activity and assessed punishment at confinement for life and a $10,000.00 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that use of a pen register was not a search under Article 1, section 9 of the Texas Constitution. Richardson v. State, 821 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.App.—Amarillo, 1991). The court relied upon cases from this Court which had held that Article 1, section 9 was not more restrictive than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In his petition appellant contends that these cases were explicitly discredited by this Court in Heitman v. State, 815 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Cr.App.1991).

We summarily grant ground one of appellant’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals to reconsider appellant’s points of error in light of Heitman. Ground two of appellant’s petition is refused without prejudice to refile after the Court of Appeals’ disposition of the case.

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

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of engaging in organized criminal activity and assessed punishment at confinement for life and a $10,000.00 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that use of a pen register was not a search under Article 1, section 9 of the Texas Constitution. Richardson v. State, 821 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.App.—Amarillo, 1991). The court relied upon cases from this Court which had held that Article 1, section 9 was not more restrictive than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In his petition appellant contends that these cases were explicitly discredited by this Court in Heitman v. State, 815 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Cr.App.1991).

We summarily grant ground one of appellant’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals to reconsider appellant’s points of error in light of Heitman. Ground two of appellant’s petition is refused without prejudice to refile after the Court of Appeals’ disposition of the case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 S.W.2d 585, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 37, 1992 WL 38108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-state-texcrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack