Case Name: Samuel R. GERSH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1987-10-14
Citations: 738 S.W.2d 287
Docket Number: No. 0921-86
Parties: Samuel R. GERSH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.
Judges: ONION, P.J., and McCORMICK, J., not participating.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 738
Pages: 287–287

Head Matter:
Samuel R. GERSH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.
No. 0921-86.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Oct. 14, 1987.
Grant Q. Poynor, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Leslie McFarlane and Janice Warder, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
MILLER, Judge.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of criminal mischief. Punishment was assessed by the trial court at a fine of $200.00. On appeal the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the conviction. Gersh v. State, 714 S.W.2d 80 (Tex.App.-Dallas, 1986).
The State raises one ground of review complaining that the Court of Appeals incorrectly held that the presumption provided in the text Penal Code Annotated Section 28.03 (Vernon Supp.1986) was unconstitutionally applied in this case. The State's petition for discretionary review will be refused.
As is true in every case where discretionary review is summarily refused, such 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).
In this case, however, we have reviewed the record and agree with the Court of Appeals opinion. We believe that they reached the correct result for the correct reasons in deciding this issue.
With this understanding, we refuse the State's petition for discretionary review.
ONION, P.J., and McCORMICK, J., not participating.