Wilson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Wilson v. State

828 S.W.2d 14, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 100, 1992 WL 79215

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 22, 1992

DocketNo. 606-91

StatusPublished

This text of 828 S.W.2d 14 (Wilson 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

Wilson v. State, 828 S.W.2d 14, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 100, 1992 WL 79215 (Tex. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[15]*15OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in a bench trial of theft from a corpse and punishment was assessed at seven years in the penitentiary. The Court of Appeals found the evidence insufficient as a matter of law, reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered a judgment of acquittal. Wilson v. State, 808 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.App—Dallas 1991). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to consider the Court of Appeals’ determination that an allegation in an indictment that property was owned by the “corpse person” of the deceased did not allege an owner under V.T.C.A. Penal Code §§ 1.07(24) and 31.03(a).

Having further reviewed the record in this case, we now determine that discretionary review was improvidently granted. The State’s Petition for Discretionary Review is hereby ordered dismissed. As is true in cases in which discretionary review is refused, this dismissal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

McCORMICK, P.J., and CAMPBELL and WHITE, JJ„ dissent.

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

[15]*15OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in a bench trial of theft from a corpse and punishment was assessed at seven years in the penitentiary. The Court of Appeals found the evidence insufficient as a matter of law, reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered a judgment of acquittal. Wilson v. State, 808 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.App—Dallas 1991). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to consider the Court of Appeals’ determination that an allegation in an indictment that property was owned by the “corpse person” of the deceased did not allege an owner under V.T.C.A. Penal Code §§ 1.07(24) and 31.03(a).

Having further reviewed the record in this case, we now determine that discretionary review was improvidently granted. The State’s Petition for Discretionary Review is hereby ordered dismissed. As is true in cases in which discretionary review is refused, this dismissal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

McCORMICK, P.J., and CAMPBELL and WHITE, JJ„ dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

828 S.W.2d 14, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 100, 1992 WL 79215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-state-texcrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack