Twine v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Twine v. State

970 S.W.2d 18, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 77, 1998 WL 315585

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 17, 1998

Docket1500-96, 1501-96

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 970 S.W.2d 18 (Twine 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

Twine v. State, 970 S.W.2d 18, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 77, 1998 WL 315585 (Tex. 1998).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Appellant guilty of criminal trespass and resisting arrest. The jury assessed punishment in the form of a term of confinement and a fine for each offense, but suspended the punishment for both offenses and placed Appellant on community supervision for six months. On appeal to the Eleventh Court of Appeals, Appellant’s sole point of error contended that the trial court committed reversible error by denying defense counsel’s request to make an opening statement immediately following the State’s opening statement The Court of Appeals agreed [19]*19the trial court erred, but concluded the error was harmless under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 81(b)(2). Twine v. State, 929 S.W.2d 685 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1996). We granted review to decide whether the Court of Appeals properly found the error harmless under Rule 81(b)(2).

After careful consideration of Appellant’s ground for review and the briefs submitted by the parties, we conclude that Appellant’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

McCORMICK, P.J., delivered a concurring opinion, joined by MANSFIELD and KELLER, JJ. MEYERS, J., delivered a concurring opinion. BAIRD, J., delivered a dissenting opinion. OVERSTREET, J., dissents. HOLLAND, J., not participating.

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.

A jury found Appellant guilty of criminal trespass and resisting arrest. The jury assessed punishment in the form of a term of confinement and a fine for each offense, but suspended the punishment for both offenses and placed Appellant on community supervision for six months. On appeal to the Eleventh Court of Appeals, Appellant’s sole point of error contended that the trial court committed reversible error by denying defense counsel’s request to make an opening statement immediately following the State’s opening statement The Court of Appeals agreed [19]*19the trial court erred, but concluded the error was harmless under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 81(b)(2). Twine v. State, 929 S.W.2d 685 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1996). We granted review to decide whether the Court of Appeals properly found the error harmless under Rule 81(b)(2).

After careful consideration of Appellant’s ground for review and the briefs submitted by the parties, we conclude that Appellant’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

McCORMICK, P.J., delivered a concurring opinion, joined by MANSFIELD and KELLER, JJ. MEYERS, J., delivered a concurring opinion. BAIRD, J., delivered a dissenting opinion. OVERSTREET, J., dissents. HOLLAND, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

970 S.W.2d 18, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 77, 1998 WL 315585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twine-v-state-texcrimapp-1998.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack