From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Jan 18, 1989
763 S.W.2d 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)

Opinion

No. 45-88.

January 18, 1989.

Appeal ftom the 97th Judicial District Court, Montague County, Frank J. Douthitt, J.

Edmund J. Zielinski, Gainesville, for appellant.

Jack A. McGaughey, Dist. Atty., Montague, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the court en banc.

OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW


Appellant was convicted by a jury for manufacture of a controlled substance and punishment was assessed at 50 years confinement and a $50,000.00 fine. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Thompson v. State, 741 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1987). Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review raising two grounds for review.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that none of the grounds raised requires reversal. As is true in every case where discretionary review is refused, however, this 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).

With this understanding, we refuse appellant's petition for discretionary review.


Summaries of

Thompson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Jan 18, 1989
763 S.W.2d 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)
Case details for

Thompson v. State

Case Details

Full title:Michael Dean THOMPSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: Jan 18, 1989

Citations

763 S.W.2d 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Johnson v. State

Johnson argues that the trial court abused its discretion under Rule 508(c)(3) because it did not order the…

Ashorn v. State

Texas courts have found that the identity of an informant need not be disclosed except in three situations:…