Case ID: sw2d_809/html/0501-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arnoldo Ricardo MUNOZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    Nos. 333-91 to 335-91.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
    May 29, 1991.
    Renato Santos, Jr., Houston, for appellant.
    John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., Timothy G. Taft and Lorraine Parker, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In a single trial, a jury convicted appellant of three separate offenses against three separate victims, attempted sexual assault and two aggravated sexual assaults. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for life for each of the aggravated sexual assault cases. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Munoz v. State, 803 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1991).

Appellant raises two grounds for review. However, as is true in every case where discretionary review is refused, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). With this understanding, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

MALONEY, J., would grant.