Young v. State

843 S.W.2d 570, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 226, 1992 WL 359832
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided December 9, 1992·No. No. 1361-92·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury found appellant guilty of burglary of a building and, after finding enhancement paragraphs true, assessed punishment at confinement for 99 years. The conviction was affirmed. Young v. State, 837 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.App.—Amarillo, 1992). That court found, inter alia, that Article 37.07(3)(a), V.A.C.C.P., as amended, allowed for the introduction of unadjudicated extraneous offenses at the punishment phase. In his petition for discretionary review appellant contends that such finding was in error.

The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our recent opinion in Grunsfeld v. State, 843 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Cr.App.1992).

Therefore, we grant appellant’s petition for discretionary review. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to that court for reconsideration of the issues presented.

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

Young v. State, 843 S.W.2d 570, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 226, 1992 WL 359832 (Tex. 1992).

843 S.W.2d 570 (Young v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

in the Interest of J.H.M, a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008
in the Interest of A. M. C., a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004
Daniel Martinez v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002
William Robert Ford v. State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002
Barber v. State
989 S.W.2d 822 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Hoffman v. State
874 S.W.2d 138 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)