State v. Marks

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

State v. Marks

821 S.W.2d 621, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 7, 1992 WL 4043

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 15, 1992

DocketNo. 1324-89

StatusPublished

This text of 821 S.W.2d 621 (State v. Marks) 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. Marks, 821 S.W.2d 621, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 7, 1992 WL 4043 (Tex. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

BAIRD, Judge.

Appellee was charged by information with the offense of criminal mischief, specifically, tampering with an electric service meter resulting in a pecuniary loss of at least $200.00, but less than $750.00. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.03(a)(2). The trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress evidence.¹ The State appealed pursuant to Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) and the Court of Appeals reversed. State v. Marks, 778 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989). Appellee's motion for rehearing was denied. This Court granted appellee’s petition for discretionary review to consider two grounds for review.

We have considered the grounds presented and find the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. We find that appellee’s [622]*622Petition for Discretionary Review was improvidently granted and is therefore dismissed. As is true in every case where discretionary review is dismissed, the dismissal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). With this understanding, we dismiss appellee’s petition for discretionary review.

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

OPINION ON APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

BAIRD, Judge.

Appellee was charged by information with the offense of criminal mischief, specifically, tampering with an electric service meter resulting in a pecuniary loss of at least $200.00, but less than $750.00. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.03(a)(2). The trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress evidence.¹ The State appealed pursuant to Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) and the Court of Appeals reversed. State v. Marks, 778 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989). Appellee's motion for rehearing was denied. This Court granted appellee’s petition for discretionary review to consider two grounds for review.

We have considered the grounds presented and find the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. We find that appellee’s [622]*622Petition for Discretionary Review was improvidently granted and is therefore dismissed. As is true in every case where discretionary review is dismissed, the dismissal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). With this understanding, we dismiss appellee’s petition for discretionary review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

821 S.W.2d 621, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 7, 1992 WL 4043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-marks-texcrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack