Schultz v. State
This text of 771 S.W.2d 549 (Schultz 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.
Opinions
OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted by the jury of driving while intoxicated. Punishment was assessed by the court at five days in county jail.
On direct appeal, the First Court of Appeals in Houston affirmed appellant’s conviction holding, in a published opinion, Schultz v. State, 725 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.App.1987), that appellant was not entitled to an attorney under Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution during the breathalyzer test. Thereafter, this Court granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review in order to review the Court of Appeals decision.
Since granting this petition we have handed down Forte v. State, 759 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) in which we held that a defendant has no state constitutional right to have counsel present at a chemical sobriety test, therefore reaching the same result as the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals judgment.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
771 S.W.2d 549, 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92, 1989 WL 47586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-state-texcrimapp-1989.