From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rexford v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Dec 11, 1991
823 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 1294-91.

December 11, 1991.

Appeal from First Court of Appeals, Harris County, Joe Kegans, J.

Randy Schaffer (on appeal only), Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Timothy G. Taft and Ruben Perez, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, 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 the trial court of sexual assault and sentenced to imprisonment for twelve years. On appeal he contended inter alia that the evidence was insufficient, that the trial court erred in considering an offense for which he was no-billed which was included within the PSI, that his guilty plea was the result of erroneous advice of counsel, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at punishment and that the State suppressed material evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Rexford v. State, 818 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st.], 1991). Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review and this Court has declined to grant review.

As is true in every case where 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.

BAIRD and OVERSTREET, JJ., dissent.


Summaries of

Rexford v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Dec 11, 1991
823 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
Case details for

Rexford v. State

Case Details

Full title:Thomas Steele REXFORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: Dec 11, 1991

Citations

823 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Babers v. State

We note that the Court of Criminal Appeals refused petition on at least three opinions which resolved this…