Legal Opinion

Hoagland v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided October 6, 1976No. 52839PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, tetrahy-drocannabinol. A guilty plea was entered and punishment was assessed by the jury at five years.

The sole ground of error presented in this appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error in denying appellant’s motion to extend time for filing of the statement of facts. Art. 40.09(3), V.A.C.C.P. Appellant does not challenge the validity of the guilty plea. We hold that the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion was not error.

The record reflects that Hoagland gave notice of appeal…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ex Parte Weeks v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1975
  2. Utsman v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1972
  3. Rhoda v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
  4. Conerly v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1967
  5. Ex Parte ThorbusCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1970

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Ward v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1987
  2. Abdnor v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1986
  3. Gray v. RobinsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1988
  4. Howell v. Dallas County Child Welfare Unit, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1986
  5. Robinson v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1983

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API