Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Durham v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided November 9, 1977No. 55734Published

1ConcurrenceOnion, Presiding Judge

The single instrument purporting to be the formal sentences pronouncing judgments as to all counts is set out in part in the majority opinion and need not be repeated here. It is by no means a model to be emulated, but it does reflect the appellant was found guilty to all three counts, and unlike the instruments in Parks v. State, 553 S.W.2d 114 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), and in Robinson v. State, 553 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), it assesses punishment “as to each charge.” Cf. White v. State, 543 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). It does not, however, apply the indeterminate sentence law to all counts,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Robinson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1977
  2. White v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1976
  3. Parks v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1977
  4. Holden v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1924

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API