Washington v. State

This is a typical “Rose harm” case: having heard all about parole law, a jury assesses punishment for a term of years less than that the prosecution called for and *262less than some appellate judges are habituated to expect in ordinary context of “overwhelming evidence of heinous, premeditated crime,” that “more than justifies the jury’s assessment^.]” Washington v. State, 768 S.W.2d 497, 498 and 500 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st] 1989). We isolated and discussed this phenomenon in Arnold v. State, 786 S.W.2d 295, at 312, n. 24 (Tex.Cr.App.1990).

The court of appeals recognized and acknowledged the…