Yarbrough v. State
This text of 779 S.W.2d 844 (Yarbrough 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.
Opinion
OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted by jury for the offense of aggravated sexual assault. The jury assessed punishment at ten years con *845 finement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
On direct appeal, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in failing to include in the charge on punishment the fifteen statutory terms and conditions enumerated in Tex.Code Crim.Pro. Ann. art. 42.12 § 6(a). Yarbrough v. State, 742 S.W.2d 62 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1987). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to review the Court of Appeals’ decision.
After reviewing the record, the briefs filed, the pertinent case law and the Court of Appeals’ disposition of the issue, it appears that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct and language to the contrary in Brass v. State, 643 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1982 writ ref’d.), is expressly overruled and the granting of appellant’s petition for discretionary review was improvident. See Murphy v. State, 777 S.W.2d 44 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), decided this date.
Therefore, appellant’s petition for discretionary review is hereby dismissed pursuant to Tex.R.App.Pro. Rule 202(k).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MILLER, J., dissents and would follow Brass v. State.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
779 S.W.2d 844, 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 135, 1989 WL 65810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yarbrough-v-state-texcrimapp-1989.