Turner v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Turner v. State

118 S.W.3d 772, 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 677, 2003 WL 22399562

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 22, 2003

DocketPD-1932-01

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 118 S.W.3d 772 (Turner 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

Turner v. State, 118 S.W.3d 772, 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 677, 2003 WL 22399562 (Tex. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MEYERS, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court in which

KELLER, P.J., PRICE, WOMACK, JOHNSON, KEASLER, HERVEY, and HOLCOMB, J.J., joined.

A jury convicted appellant Marcus Turner of capital murder and sentenced him to life in prison for his part in a robbery-murder. Tex. Pen.Code § 19.03. On appeal, Appellant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the pretrial plea bargaining process and the Court of Appeals reversed his conviction. Turner v. State, 49 S.W.3d 461 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001). The State petitioned this Court, enumerating four grounds for review. We granted review to address two of those grounds:

1. “Does the court of appeals’ opinion usurp the role of the trial court by insisting that the trial court was required to believe Appellant (and possibly his defense counsel) on the historical fact issue of whether the acceptance deadline had been communicated to Appellant?”

2. “Did the court of appeals’ opinion relieve Appellant of his obligation to show prejudice — (a) by trampling the trial court’s prerogative to make credibility determinations based on witness demeanor, and (b) by ignoring Appellant’s failure to present evidence that he would have timely accepted the 35-year plea offer had the July acceptance deadline been communicated to him?”

Having examined the record and briefs and considered the arguments in the case, we have determined that our decision to *773 grant review was improvident. We therefore dismiss the State’s petition as improvidently granted.

COCHRAN, J., not participating.

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

OPINION

MEYERS, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court in which

KELLER, P.J., PRICE, WOMACK, JOHNSON, KEASLER, HERVEY, and HOLCOMB, J.J., joined.

A jury convicted appellant Marcus Turner of capital murder and sentenced him to life in prison for his part in a robbery-murder. Tex. Pen.Code § 19.03. On appeal, Appellant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the pretrial plea bargaining process and the Court of Appeals reversed his conviction. Turner v. State, 49 S.W.3d 461 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001). The State petitioned this Court, enumerating four grounds for review. We granted review to address two of those grounds:

1. “Does the court of appeals’ opinion usurp the role of the trial court by insisting that the trial court was required to believe Appellant (and possibly his defense counsel) on the historical fact issue of whether the acceptance deadline had been communicated to Appellant?”

2. “Did the court of appeals’ opinion relieve Appellant of his obligation to show prejudice — (a) by trampling the trial court’s prerogative to make credibility determinations based on witness demeanor, and (b) by ignoring Appellant’s failure to present evidence that he would have timely accepted the 35-year plea offer had the July acceptance deadline been communicated to him?”

Having examined the record and briefs and considered the arguments in the case, we have determined that our decision to *773 grant review was improvident. We therefore dismiss the State’s petition as improvidently granted.

COCHRAN, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.W.3d 772, 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 677, 2003 WL 22399562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-state-texcrimapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack