Legal Opinion

Young v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided December 9, 1992No. 1361-92PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

2Per curiam

A jury found appellant guilty of burglary of a building and, after finding enhancement paragraphs true, assessed punishment at confinement for 99 years. The conviction was affirmed. Young v. State, 837 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.App.—Amarillo, 1992). That court found, inter alia, that Article 37.07(3)(a), V.A.C.C.P., as amended, allowed for the introduction of unadjudicated extraneous offenses at the punishment phase. In his petition for discretionary review appellant contends that such finding was in error.

The Court of Appeals did not have the…

3Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Grunsfeld v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
  2. Young v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1992

4Cited by7 opinions

  1. Barber v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1999
  2. Hoffman v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1994
  3. Daniel Martinez v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2002
  4. William Robert Ford v. State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2002
  5. William Robert Ford v. State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2002

2 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