From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aguilar v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Jun 3, 1992
830 S.W.2d 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 436-92.

June 3, 1992.

Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2, Tarrant County, Lee Ann Dauphinot, J.

Mary B. Thornton, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., C. Chris Marshall and Steven W. Conder, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the court en banc.


OPINION


A jury convicted appellant of robbery and assessed his punishment at confinement for fifty years after finding he was a habitual offender. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that appellant had not made a prima facie showing that the State had exercised one of its peremptory strikes to exclude a member of the venire on the basis of race. Aguilar v. State, 826 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth, 1992).

Appellant raises three grounds for review. After careful review we refuse appellant's petition for review. However, as is true in every case in which discretionary review is refused, this refusal 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). With this understanding, we refuse appellant's petition for discretionary review.


Summaries of

Aguilar v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Jun 3, 1992
830 S.W.2d 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)
Case details for

Aguilar v. State

Case Details

Full title:Jesus Quintana AGUILAR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: Jun 3, 1992

Citations

830 S.W.2d 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Reese v. State

I write separately believing that while the petition should indeed be refused, it should be refused with a…

Oldham v. State

As is true in every case where discretionary review is refused, this refusal certainly does not constitute…