Case Name: Archie Herman BURKHALTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1983-06-29
Citations: 655 S.W.2d 208
Docket Number: No. 986-82
Parties: Archie Herman BURKHALTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ., dissent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 655
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
Archie Herman BURKHALTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 986-82.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
June 29, 1983.
Joe W. Walsh and Lawrence A. Walsh, Brownsville, for appellant.
Selden N. Snedeker, Former Dist. Atty. and Joe K. Hendley, Asst. Dist. Atty., Reynaldo S. Cantu, Jr., Dist. Atty. and Kirk Brush, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brownsville, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty. and Alfred Walker, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of attempted murder and punishment was assessed at imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections for ten years. Appellant's conviction was affirmed in a published opinion delivered by the Court of Appeals, Burkhalter v. State, 655 S.W.2d 215 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi [13th] 1982).
It now appears that the decision to grant the appellant's petition for discretionary review was improvident. Tex.Cr.App.R. 304(k); Art. 44.45(b)(6) and (7), V.A.C.C.P. See Hanna v. State, 632 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).
The appellant's petition for discretionary review is dismissed.
CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ., dissent.