Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

826 S.W.2d 955

Carrillo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1992-04-08

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 2004

4 state decisions

Relies on Sheffield v. State · Carrillo v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-04-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION ON THE STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

¶2Appellant was convicted by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance, and punishment was assessed by the trial court at twenty-five years confinement plus a $1,000.00 fine. His conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new trial. Carrillo v. State, 821 S.W.2d 697 (Tex.App — Dallas 1991).

¶3The State raises two grounds for review before this Court. After careful consideration, we refuse the petition. However, as is true in every case in which discretionary-review is refused, our 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 the State’s petition for discretionary review.

/826/sw2d/955 · .json · Public domain