Washington v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Washington v. State

799 S.W.2d 261, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 162, 1990 WL 160392

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 24, 1990

DocketNo. 0595-89

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 799 S.W.2d 261 (Washington 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

Washington v. State, 799 S.W.2d 261, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 162, 1990 WL 160392 (Tex. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of aggravated robbery. The jury assessed punishment at fifty years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.¹ The court of appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction in an unpublished opinion, holding that the parole law instruction was not unconstitutional. Washington v. State, Tex.App. No. 01-86-00481-CR, 1987 WL 14557 (Delivered July 23, 1987). This Court, in an unpublished opinion, remanded appellant’s case to the Court of Appeals in light of Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), to conduct a harmless error analysis under the guidelines of Tex. R.App.Pro 81(b)(2). In a published opinion, the court of appeals found the inclusion of the parole law instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Washington v. State, 768 S.W.2d 497 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1989). This Court then granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review on May 9, 1990.

We now find that our decision to grant the appellant’s petition for discretionary review in order to determine whether the court of appeals erred in their holding was improvident. Tex.R.App.Pro. 202(k). See Arnold v. State, 786 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.Cr.App.1990).

With this understanding, we dismiss the appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

It is so ordered.

McCORMICK, P.J., concurs in the result. TEAGUE, J., dissents. STURNS, 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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of aggravated robbery. The jury assessed punishment at fifty years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.¹ The court of appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction in an unpublished opinion, holding that the parole law instruction was not unconstitutional. Washington v. State, Tex.App. No. 01-86-00481-CR, 1987 WL 14557 (Delivered July 23, 1987). This Court, in an unpublished opinion, remanded appellant’s case to the Court of Appeals in light of Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), to conduct a harmless error analysis under the guidelines of Tex. R.App.Pro 81(b)(2). In a published opinion, the court of appeals found the inclusion of the parole law instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Washington v. State, 768 S.W.2d 497 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1989). This Court then granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review on May 9, 1990.

We now find that our decision to grant the appellant’s petition for discretionary review in order to determine whether the court of appeals erred in their holding was improvident. Tex.R.App.Pro. 202(k). See Arnold v. State, 786 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.Cr.App.1990).

With this understanding, we dismiss the appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

It is so ordered.

McCORMICK, P.J., concurs in the result. TEAGUE, J., dissents. STURNS, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

799 S.W.2d 261, 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 162, 1990 WL 160392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-state-texcrimapp-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack