Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

940 S.W.2d 660

State v. Flores

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided December 18, 1996

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1996-12-18

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 2000

3 state decisions

Relies on Flores v. State · Texas Water Commission v. Lindsey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-12-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

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

PER CURIAM.

¶2Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to confinement for life. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Flores v. State, 920 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly addressed appellant’s point of error contending the trial *661judge erred in denying a proper question on voir dire.

¶3After careful review of the appellate record, the Court of Appeals’ opinion, as well as the briefs and oral argument before this Court, we conclude that our decision to grant review was improvident. Accordingly, the petition for discretionary review is dismissed. Tex.R.App.Pro. 202(k). As is true with every case where discretionary review is dismissed, the dismissal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Bidelspach v. State, 850 S.W.2d 188 (Tex.Cr.App.1993).

KELLER, J., concurs in the result.WHITE, J., not participating.
/940/sw2d/660 · .json · Public domain