Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

828 S.W.2d 11

Cook v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided April 15, 1992

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1992-04-15

Relies on Sheffield v. State · Ex Parte Voelkel · Cook v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 2020

3 state decisions

201992200020102020decided

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 →

¶1*12OPINION

PER CURIAM.

¶2A jury convicted appellant of violation of the state securities act and, after finding appellant had previously been convicted of a felony, assessed punishment at confinement for twenty years. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served consecutive to a federal sentence previously assessed against appellant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Cook v. State, 824 S.W.2d 634 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991).

¶3Appellant raises three grounds for review. After careful review we refuse appellant’s petition for review. However, as is true in every case in which 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). Specifically, we do not agree that failure to object waives any error in an order requiring sentences to be served consecutively. See Ex parte Voelkel, 517 S.W.2d 291 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). With this understanding, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

/828/sw2d/11 · .json · Public domain