Tompkins v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Tompkins v. State

888 S.W.2d 825, 1994 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 133, 1994 WL 695919

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 14, 1994

DocketNo. 350-94

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 888 S.W.2d 825 (Tompkins 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

Tompkins v. State, 888 S.W.2d 825, 1994 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 133, 1994 WL 695919 (Tex. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault and the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for forty years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Tompkins v. State, 869 S.W.2d 637 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1994). We granted Appellant’s petition for discretionary review in which he alleged the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial.

After further review of the petition for discretionary review and the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we have determined that Appellant’s petition was improvidently granted. Just as in cases where we refuse to grant a petition for discretionary review, this Court’s decision that such a petition was improvidently granted should not be construed as approval by this Court of the language or reasoning used by the Court of Appeals in reaching its decision, or even its holding on a given contention.

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

CLINTON and MILLER, JJ., dissent.

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