Case Name: Sherman Louis HOUSTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1993-02-10
Citations: 846 S.W.2d 848
Docket Number: No. 1019-92
Parties: Sherman Louis HOUSTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: MILLER, BAIRD and OVERSTREET, JJ., join.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 846
Pages: 848–849

Head Matter:
Sherman Louis HOUSTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 1019-92.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Feb. 10, 1993.
Phil Robertson, Clifton (Court-appointed), for appellant.
Andy J. McMullen, Dist. Atty., Hamilton, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault. The jury assessed punishment at fifty years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On direct appeal, the court of appeals affirmed his conviction. Houston v. State, 832 S.W.2d 180 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992).
Before the court of appeals appellant complained that the trial court improperly admitted evidence that he had taken nude pictures of the victim in the instant case and his daughter shortly before he committed the instant offense. Id. at 181. The court of appeals held the questioned evidence was properly admissible as "same transaction contextual evidence" under Mayes v. State, 816 S.W.2d 79 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). The court of appeals further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence was not excluded under Rule of Criminal Evidence 403. We granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to determine whether the court of appeals erred in failing to properly review the trial court's decision under Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 403.
After careful review of the petition for discretionary review and the opinion of the court of appeals, we have determined that appellant's petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted. Appellant's petition for discretionary review is dismissed.