From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Michalenko v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
May 23, 1984
678 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 936-83.

May 23, 1984.

Appeal from the 26th Judicial District Court, Williamson County, William S. Lott, J.

Bill Buckner, Georgetown, Mary P. Beeman, Florence, Larry Laden, David K. Chapman, Austin, for appellant.

Edward J. Walsh, Dist. Atty., Georgetown, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., and Alfred Walker, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.


OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW


Appellant was convicted of burglary of a habitation pursuant to V.T.C.A. Penal Code Sec. 30.02(a)(1) and assessed a life sentence, the jury having found he was twice before convicted of felonies as alleged in the indictment. See V.T.C.A. Penal Code Sec. 12.42(d). On appeal to the Third Court of Appeals sitting in Austin, his conviction was reversed and a judgment of acquittal was ordered. In its petition for discretionary review to this Court, the State urges that the Court of Appeals, 658 S.W.2d 760, erred in holding that "a rational trier of fact could not have found the essential elements of this crime beyond a reasonable doubt." We granted review in order to determine the correctness of that decision.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs of the respective parties and the opinion of the court of appeals and have determined that the decision of the court of appeals is correct. The State's petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted. It is therefore ordered dismissed.


Summaries of

Michalenko v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
May 23, 1984
678 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)
Case details for

Michalenko v. State

Case Details

Full title:Michael L. MICHALENKO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: May 23, 1984

Citations

678 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Taylor v. State

He avers that the State failed to prove any motive on the part of appellant for attempting to kill Lloyd…

Nickerson v. State

Therefore, because of the trial error, and the insufficiency of circumstantial evidence, we sustain the…