From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Feb 8, 1984
663 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)

Opinion

Nos. 671-83, 672-83.

February 8, 1984.

Gus A. Saper, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty. and J. Sidney Crowley, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the court en banc.


ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW


Upon original submission of these causes we vacated the opinions below for reconsideration in the light of Ex Parte Crisp, 661 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983) (opinion on original submission). Because we granted the State's motion for leave to file motion for rehearing in Crisp, we granted a similar motion in the instant causes pending the outcome of Crisp.

The State's motion for rehearing in Crisp was denied by an opinion delivered December 7, 1983. We therefore deny the instant motions.

The judgment of the court of appeals remains vacated, and the causes are remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with the original opinions in these causes and with Crisp, supra.


Summaries of

Martin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Feb 8, 1984
663 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)
Case details for

Martin v. State

Case Details

Full title:Mike Wayne MARTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: Feb 8, 1984

Citations

663 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Martin v. State

In the first conviction, punishment was assessed at 15 years and in the second at 6 years in the Texas…