Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

823 S.W.2d 296

Rexford v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided December 11, 1991

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1991-12-11

Relies on Sheffield v. State · Rexford v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-12-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2012

14 state decisions

90199120002010decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

¶2Appellant 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.

¶3As 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.
/823/sw2d/296 · .json · Public domain