771 SW2D 549 - Schultz v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably McChesney v. State (1999), Viveros v. State (1992)

65 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1William W. Vance, Bryan, for appellant.

¶2Bill Turner, Dist. Atty., Michael Hummell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bryan, and Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

¶3Before the court en banc.

¶4

OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

¶5MILLER, Judge.

¶6Appellant was convicted by the jury of driving while intoxicated. Punishment was assessed by the court at five days in county jail.

¶7On direct appeal, the First Court of Appeals in Houston affirmed appellant's conviction holding, in a published opinion, Schultz v. State,725 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.App. 1987), that appellant was not entitled to an attorney under Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution during the breathalyzer test. Thereafter, this Court granted appellant's petition for discretionary review in order to review the Court of Appeals decision.

¶8Since granting this petition we have handed down Forte v. State,759 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) in which we held that a defendant has no state constitutional right to have counsel present at a chemical sobriety test, therefore reaching the same result as the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals judgment.

¶9CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in Forte v. State,759 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), and for the further reason that appellant was subjected to custodial interrogation after invoking his right to counsel.