Rodriguez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Rodriguez v. State

924 S.W.2d 156, 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 83, 1996 WL 334307

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 19, 1996

DocketNo. 1196-95

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 924 S.W.2d 156 (Rodriguez 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

Rodriguez v. State, 924 S.W.2d 156, 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 83, 1996 WL 334307 (Tex. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offenses of murder and injury to a child, V.T.C.A. Penal Code, §§ 19.02 and 22.04, alleged to have been committed on or about July 80,1991 in Bexar eounty. On March 12, [157]*1571993, appellant was found guilty by a jury of the offenses charged in the indictment, and on March 25, 1993, the trial court assessed punishment at 99 years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. The Fourth Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s request for appointment of a defense medical expert, and reversed appellant’s conviction. Rodriguez v. State, 906 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995). The State subsequently filed a Motion for Rehearing and a Motion for En Banc Consideration on June 1, 1995, which were denied by the court of appeals on July 28, 1995. We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review on four questions:

1. Did the court of appeals err by failing to assess the reasonableness of the trial court’s refusal to appoint a defense medical expert as of the time the trial court made its ruling?

2. Did the court of appeals err in finding that appellant made the necessary showing of need for the appointment of a defense medical expert?

3. Did the court of appeals err in basing its holding that the trial court erred in failing to appoint a defense expert on the complexity of the expert’s area of expertise?

4. Did the court of appeals err in holding that the trial court erred in failing to appoint a defense medical expert because the appellant was entitled to an expert to inspect physical evidence?

We have carefully considered the four questions for review and the briefs before us. After due consideration, we find that the State’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, the petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

WHITE, MANSFIELD and KELLER, JJ., dissent.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offenses of murder and injury to a child, V.T.C.A. Penal Code, §§ 19.02 and 22.04, alleged to have been committed on or about July 80,1991 in Bexar eounty. On March 12, [157]*1571993, appellant was found guilty by a jury of the offenses charged in the indictment, and on March 25, 1993, the trial court assessed punishment at 99 years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. The Fourth Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s request for appointment of a defense medical expert, and reversed appellant’s conviction. Rodriguez v. State, 906 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995). The State subsequently filed a Motion for Rehearing and a Motion for En Banc Consideration on June 1, 1995, which were denied by the court of appeals on July 28, 1995. We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review on four questions:

1. Did the court of appeals err by failing to assess the reasonableness of the trial court’s refusal to appoint a defense medical expert as of the time the trial court made its ruling?

2. Did the court of appeals err in finding that appellant made the necessary showing of need for the appointment of a defense medical expert?

3. Did the court of appeals err in basing its holding that the trial court erred in failing to appoint a defense expert on the complexity of the expert’s area of expertise?

4. Did the court of appeals err in holding that the trial court erred in failing to appoint a defense medical expert because the appellant was entitled to an expert to inspect physical evidence?

We have carefully considered the four questions for review and the briefs before us. After due consideration, we find that the State’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, the petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

WHITE, MANSFIELD and KELLER, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

924 S.W.2d 156, 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 83, 1996 WL 334307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-state-texcrimapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack