Case ID: sw2d_786/html/0356-01.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

VIDEO NEWS, INC., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    Nos. 1600-89 to 1610-89.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
    March 7, 1990.
    Rehearing Denied April 11, 1990.
    Rokki Ford Roberts, Houston, H. Louis Sirkin, Edmund J. McKenna, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
    John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., and J. Harvey Hudson and William Patterson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Hut-tash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
   OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled nolo contendere and was convicted by the trial court of possession of ¿obscene material. A fine of $1,000 was assessed in each of the eleven cases. Appellant’s convictions were affirmed. Video News, Inc. v. State, 781 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st], 1989).

Appellant raises one ground for review. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this ground does not mandate reversal. However, as is true in every case where discretionary review is refused, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning or language 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.

CLINTON, J., would grant.