Case Name: Freddie Joe COCKERHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1987-04-08
Citations: 729 S.W.2d 742
Docket Number: No. 194-86
Parties: Freddie Joe COCKERHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: W.C. DAVIS, McCORMICK and WHITE, JJ., join this opinion.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 729
Pages: 742–748

Head Matter:
Freddie Joe COCKERHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 194-86.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
April 8, 1987.
John H. Hagler, Dallas, for appellant.
John Vance, Dist. Atty. and Constance M. Maher and Ruth Plagenhoef, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
MILLER, Judge.
Appellant's conviction for aggravated robbery was reversed by the Court of Ap peals. Cockerham v. State, 703 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1985). The Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecutor's indirect comment on appellant's failure to testify was both improper and harmful under Art. 38.08, V.A.C.C.P.
We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to examine the correctness of this holding. Upon careful review of the briefs of the respective parties and of the Court of Appeals' opinion, we find that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct and does not merit further review by this Court. The State's petition for discretionary review is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted, pursuant to Tex. R.App. Pro. Rule 202(k). Michalenko v. State, 678 S.W.2d 75 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Pruitt v. State, 678 S.W.2d 76 (Tex.Cr.App.1984).