Nonn v. State
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON REMAND
DORSEY, Justice.
On remand, we address the discrete issue of whether the oral statements made by the appellant in this case were obtained in substantial compliance with the dictates of article 38.22 of the code of criminal procedure. See Tex.Code CRImProcAnn. art. 38.22 (Vernon 1979). 1 We hold that they were not; but that such error did not affect a substantial right of the appellant. See Tex.R.App.P. 44.2. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in admitting written statements made by appellant which were…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Cockrell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996
- Morales v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2000
- Alvarado v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1993
- Penry v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
- White v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1989
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Nonn v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2003
- Nonn, Jaime CharlesCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2003
- Raymond Trent Peterek v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2012
- Thomas Little v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2015