Villanueva v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Villanueva v. State

786 S.W.2d 367, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 41, 1990 WL 33487

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 28, 1990

DocketNo. 706-89, 707-89

StatusPublished

This text of 786 S.W.2d 367 (Villanueva 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

Villanueva v. State, 786 S.W.2d 367, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 41, 1990 WL 33487 (Tex. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of two charges of aggravated kidnapping and assessed punishment at 99 years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Villanueva v. State, 1988 WL 26379 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st], Nos. 1-87-298, 299-CR, delivered March 24, 1988). On remand from this Court in light of Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), the Court of Appeals again affirmed. Villanueva, supra, opinion on remand, delivered April 6, 1989, 769 S.W.2d 678. We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to address the Court of Appeals’ determination that the parole instructions were harmless under Rose and Tex.R.App.Pro. 81(b)(2).

We have considered the issues raised and find that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. The petition for discretionary review will be refused. As is true in every case where this Court refuses a petition for discretionary review, refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. See Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Moreover, harm determinations relevant to submission of the unconstitutional parole statute are now governed by this Court’s opinion in Arnold v. State, 784 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Cr.App.1990).

[368]*368With this understanding, appellant’s petition for discretionary review is refused.

McCORMICK, P.J., concurs. TEAGUE, J., dissents.

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 convicted appellant of two charges of aggravated kidnapping and assessed punishment at 99 years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Villanueva v. State, 1988 WL 26379 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st], Nos. 1-87-298, 299-CR, delivered March 24, 1988). On remand from this Court in light of Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), the Court of Appeals again affirmed. Villanueva, supra, opinion on remand, delivered April 6, 1989, 769 S.W.2d 678. We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to address the Court of Appeals’ determination that the parole instructions were harmless under Rose and Tex.R.App.Pro. 81(b)(2).

We have considered the issues raised and find that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result. The petition for discretionary review will be refused. As is true in every case where this Court refuses a petition for discretionary review, refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. See Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Moreover, harm determinations relevant to submission of the unconstitutional parole statute are now governed by this Court’s opinion in Arnold v. State, 784 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Cr.App.1990).

[368]*368With this understanding, appellant’s petition for discretionary review is refused.

McCORMICK, P.J., concurs. TEAGUE, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

786 S.W.2d 367, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 41, 1990 WL 33487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villanueva-v-state-texcrimapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack