Churitch v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Hollywood v. State

    No. 05-01-01233-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 24, 2003)

    Nor are we prepared to apply the standards developed for reviewing civil punitive damage awards to the review of criminal punishment. See Churitch v. State, 888 S.W.2d 911, 911 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no writ) (holding intermediate appellant courts must follow the court of criminal appeals's pronouncements on matters concerning the enforcement of criminal laws). Moreover, the trial court assessed a sentence within the statutory range for aggravated robbery which complies with the penal code's objectives.

  2. Duckworth v. State

    89 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App. 2002)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that where record did not adequately demonstrate how further development of evidence would have led to a lesser punishment, prejudice had not been established

    We may not apply a different analysis to a court of criminal appeals' pronouncement lest we overstep our power as an intermediate appellate court. See Churitch v. State, 888 S.W.2d 911, 911 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no pet.); McGlothlin v. State, 705 S.W.2d 851, 862 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 749 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988). For this reason, we decline appellant's invitation to review Thompson v. State under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.