Russaw v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Russaw v. State

662 S.W.2d 1, 1982 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1130

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 24, 1982

DocketNo. 65911

StatusPublished

This text of 662 S.W.2d 1 (Russaw 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

Russaw v. State, 662 S.W.2d 1, 1982 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1130 (Tex. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

McCORMICK, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and punishment, enhanced by a pri- or felony conviction, was assessed at confinement for life. Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.

In a supplemental brief filed by counsel and in a pro se brief, appellant contends that the court’s charge is fundamentally defective as in Evans v. State, 606 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Although I believe Evans was wrongly decided, a majority of this Court, to which I must unwillingly bow, has recently decided that Evans is founded upon “sound logical reasoning” and is the law in this State. Hill v. State, 640 S.W.2d 879 (1982). For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hill v. State, supra, I would overrule this ground of error. However, in view of Hill v. State, supra, and the majority’s rule therein, this ground of error is sustained.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

OPINION

McCORMICK, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and punishment, enhanced by a pri- or felony conviction, was assessed at confinement for life. Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.

In a supplemental brief filed by counsel and in a pro se brief, appellant contends that the court’s charge is fundamentally defective as in Evans v. State, 606 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Although I believe Evans was wrongly decided, a majority of this Court, to which I must unwillingly bow, has recently decided that Evans is founded upon “sound logical reasoning” and is the law in this State. Hill v. State, 640 S.W.2d 879 (1982). For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hill v. State, supra, I would overrule this ground of error. However, in view of Hill v. State, supra, and the majority’s rule therein, this ground of error is sustained.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

662 S.W.2d 1, 1982 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russaw-v-state-texcrimapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack