Tidwell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

Tidwell v. State

645 S.W.2d 297, 1983 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 897

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

DecidedFebruary 9, 1983

DocketNo. 899-82

StatusPublished

This text of 645 S.W.2d 297 (Tidwell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tidwell v. State, 645 S.W.2d 297, 1983 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 897 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is taken from a conviction for involuntary manslaughter. After finding Appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at 10 years’ confinement in the penitentiary. The Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant’s conviction. Tidwell v. State, 646 S.W.2d 474 (Tex.App.—Tyler, 1982). No motion for rehearing was filed.

Appellant reurges in his petition for discretionary review the five grounds of error which he presented to the Tyler Court of Appeals. We now concluded that the Court of Appeals reached the proper result in affirming Appellant’s conviction. Therefore, Appellant’s petition for discretionary review will be refused. However, such action by this Court should not be interpreted as an adoption by this Court of the reasoning used by the Tyler Court of Appeals in disposing of Appellant’s first ground of error.

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

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is taken from a conviction for involuntary manslaughter. After finding Appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at 10 years’ confinement in the penitentiary. The Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant’s conviction. Tidwell v. State, 646 S.W.2d 474 (Tex.App.—Tyler, 1982). No motion for rehearing was filed.

Appellant reurges in his petition for discretionary review the five grounds of error which he presented to the Tyler Court of Appeals. We now concluded that the Court of Appeals reached the proper result in affirming Appellant’s conviction. Therefore, Appellant’s petition for discretionary review will be refused. However, such action by this Court should not be interpreted as an adoption by this Court of the reasoning used by the Tyler Court of Appeals in disposing of Appellant’s first ground of error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 S.W.2d 297, 1983 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tidwell-v-state-tenncrimapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack