Young v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
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
- Grunsfeld v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
- Young v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1992
4Cited by7 opinions
- Barber v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1999
- Hoffman v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1994
- Daniel Martinez v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2002
- William Robert Ford v. State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2002
- 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.