State v. Flores

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

State v. Flores

940 S.W.2d 660, 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 249, 1996 WL 726409

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 18, 1996

DocketNo. 773-96

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 940 S.W.2d 660 (State v. Flores) 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

State v. Flores, 940 S.W.2d 660, 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 249, 1996 WL 726409 (Tex. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON THE APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to confinement for life. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Flores v. State, 920 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly addressed appellant’s point of error contending the trial [661]*661judge erred in denying a proper question on voir dire.

After careful review of the appellate record, the Court of Appeals’ opinion, as well as the briefs and oral argument before this Court, we conclude that our decision to grant review was improvident. Accordingly, the petition for discretionary review is dismissed. Tex.R.App.Pro. 202(k). As is true with every case where discretionary review is dismissed, the dismissal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Bidelspach v. State, 850 S.W.2d 188 (Tex.Cr.App.1993).

KELLER, J., concurs in the result. WHITE, J., not participating.

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

OPINION ON THE APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to confinement for life. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Flores v. State, 920 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly addressed appellant’s point of error contending the trial [661]*661judge erred in denying a proper question on voir dire.

After careful review of the appellate record, the Court of Appeals’ opinion, as well as the briefs and oral argument before this Court, we conclude that our decision to grant review was improvident. Accordingly, the petition for discretionary review is dismissed. Tex.R.App.Pro. 202(k). As is true with every case where discretionary review is dismissed, the dismissal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Bidelspach v. State, 850 S.W.2d 188 (Tex.Cr.App.1993).

KELLER, J., concurs in the result. WHITE, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

940 S.W.2d 660, 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 249, 1996 WL 726409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-flores-texcrimapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack