Case ID: sw2d_789/html/0280-01.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

Charles Lee HOWARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 0899-86.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
    Oct. 5, 1988.
    Rehearing Granted Oct. 19, 1988.
    Rehearing Denied May 23, 1990.
    Glen E. Eakman, Fort Worth, for appellant.
    Tim Curry, Dist. Atty. and C. Chris Marshall, Delonia A. Watson and Scott Wisch, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Robert Hut-tash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
   OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

The record reflects that Charles Lee Howard, henceforth appellant, was convicted by a jury of aggravated delivery of a controlled substance, namely, amphetamine of more than 200 grams but less than 400 grams. The jury also assessed appellant’s punishment at 15 years in the Department of Corrections.

The Second Court of Appeals affirmed. See Howard v. State, 713 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.App.-2nd 1986).

We granted the appellant’s petition for discretionary review in order to review his assertion that “The trial court and court of appeals erred in overruling appellant’s objection to hearsay extraneous offenses committed by appellant.”

We now find that the court of appeals reached the correct result in deciding the issue. Therefore, appellant’s petition for discretionary review is refused.

As is true in every case where this Court refuses a petition for discretionary review, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. See Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

With this understanding, appellant’s petition for discretionary review is refused.

CLINTON, CAMPBELL and DUNCAN, JJ., dissent.

McCORMICK, J., not participating.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of the offense of aggravated delivery of a controlled substance, namely, amphetamine of more than 200 grams but less than 400 grams. Art. 4476.15, § 4.03, V.T.C.S. (Repealed, 1989); now, see V.T.C.A., Health and Safety Code, § 481.113(c), (d)(1) (effective, Sept. 1, 1989). The trial court assessed his punishment at 15 years confinement.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Howard v. State, 713 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.App.—2 Dist.1986). This Court granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review on the ground for review that the trial court erred when it overruled appellant’s objection to the admission of “hearsay extraneous offenses” committed by appellant. This Court decided that the Court of Appeals reached the correct result in deciding the issue, and refused appellant’s petition for discretionary review. At the same time, this Court also held that refusal did not “constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. See Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).” Opinion of Oct. 5, 1988, supra.

After review, this Court finds that the disposition of appellant’s ground for review on original submission was correct. This decision also does not constitute an endorsement or adoption of the reasoning of the Court of Appeals on direct appeal.

Appellant’s grounds raised in his motion for rehearing are overruled. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.

CLINTON and CAMPBELL, JJ„ dissent.